UC-NRLF 


$B    Efil    SMM 


1 


COMPULSORY    MINIMUM 
WAGE    SCALE 


COMPULSORY     MINIMUM 
WAGE    SCALE 


Resolved,  That  the  Policy  of  Fixing  Minimum  Wage 
%  Scales  by  State  Boards  is  Desirable 


CONSTRUCTIVE  AND  REBUTTAL  SPEECHES 


BY 


LESTER  F.  REAM         BRUCE  F.  GATES 
ALVIN  WENDT  LYLE  M.  CASSAT 


OF 


PARSONS  COLLEGE,  FAIRFIELD,  IOWA 
•I 


In  the  Triangular  Debates  between  Leander  Clark  College,  Toledo, 

Iowa;  Penn  College,  Oskaloosa,  Iowa,  and  Parsons  College, 

Fairfield,  Iowa. 


THE    H.    W.  WILSON   COMPANY 

WHITE  PLAINS,  N.  Y.,  and    NEW  YORK  CITY 

1914 


^^^^ 


Va9>3 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/compulsoryminimuOOreamrich 


COMPULSORY  MINIMUM  WAGE  SCALE 

PART  I— AFFIRMATIVE 

Resolved, 

That  the  policy  of  fixing  minimum  wage 
scales    by    state    boards    is    desirable. 

FIRST  AFFIRMATIVE  SPEECH 
Lester  F.  Ream, 

We  are  discussing  to-night  a  question  which  has  for  its 
aim  the  welfare  and  protection  of  the  exploited  and  unpro- 
tected workers.  What  we  mean  by  exploited  and  unpro- 
tected workers  are  those  which  are  sweated.  By  sweating  we 
mean,  of  course,  what  has  come  by  common  consent  to  be 
the  ordinarily  accepted  definition  of  that  term,  viz.,  the  pay- 
ment by  an  employer  to  his  employees  of  a  wage  which  is 
insufficient  to  purchase  for  them  the  necessaries  of  life.  Thus 
we  see  that  sweating  is  not  confined  to  home  work  nor  to 
those  working  in  any  one  occupation.  In  the  various  states 
many  of  the  girls,  boys  and  women  working  in  our  factories, 
department  stores,  laundries  and  other  industries  are  known 
to  be  sweated;  that  is,  they  do  not  receive  a  wage  sufficient 
to  provide  for  themselves  the  necessaries  of  life.  It  is  true, 
however,  that  we  find  the  worst  conditions  among  the  home- 
workers  and  especially  those  who  undertake  to  finish  at 
tneir  homes  garments  put  out  by  large  wholesale  houses. 

Before  entering  into  an  argumentative  discussion  of  this 
question,  I  desire  to  briefly  depict  the  conditions  prevalent 
in  the  sweatshops,  or,  in  other  words,  the  home-workers, 
and  also  to  give  a  fair  estimate  of  the  conditions  of  those 
working  in  factories,  department  stores  and  other  industries. 
In  these  sweated  shops  the  wage  paid  is  inconceivably  small, 
but  nevertheless  on  these  wages  the  workers  in  a  desperate 


291832 


2  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

effort  to  keep  body  and  soul  together  deprive  themselves  of 
many  things  w^hich  are  necessary  to  decent  living  and  good 
health.  Here  we  find  the  conditions  deplorable.  Here  the 
mother  is  compelled  to  v^ork  long  hours  and  consequently 
has  no  time  for  household  duties,  and  as  a  result  the  home 
must  go  unkept,  and  the  utmost  filth  abounds.  Here  you 
will  see  families  huddled  together  in  unsanitary  houses, 
where  the  most  infectious  diseases  abound,  such  as  diphtheria, 
smallpox  and  consumption.  Here  you  can  behold  the  atro- 
cious crime  of  seeing  the  withered,  white  and  trembling  hand 
of  a  great  white  plague  victim  slowly  stiching  away  upon  a 
garment  which  perchance  you  or  I  may  some  day  wear  and 
investing  in  it  the  germs  of  that  horrible  disease  which  are 
destined  to  impair  the  health  and  efficiency  of  successive 
generations.  Not  only  do  these  conditions  involve  the  work- 
ers of  the  present  day,  but  its  baneful  curse  blights  the  hope 
of  future  generations.  Here  children  grow  up  without  the 
proper  training  of  a  mother  or  the  necessary  discipline  of  a 
father,  or  even  the  first  fundamentals  of  an  education.  In 
these  despicable  places  children  are  ground  into  dollars 
despite  the  wishes  of  father  and  mother.  In  the  sweatshops 
every  child  must  work,  for  it  is  impossible  for  the  father  to 
provide  for  the  family  out  of  his  own  wage.  Here  children 
are  cheated  out  of  the  golden  days  of  childhood  and  the  joys 
of  youth,  and  as  a  result  children  grow  up  to  become  not 
able-bodied  men  and  women,  but  unemployables,  both  men- 
tally and  physically  defective. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  our  factories,  department  stores  and 
other  industries.  Here  we  find  our  workers  sweated  almost 
beyond  endurance.  In  these  industries  thousands  of  mothers 
are  forced  to  work  from  morning  till  night  to  help  earn  a 
living  for  their  children.  Oh  how  many  mothers  are  there 
who  are  forced  to  work  from  week  to  week,,  their  only 
thought  being  to  earn  a  living  for  their  loved  ones,  and  by 
so  doing  are  made  unfit  for  the  greatest  service  for  which 
God  has  placed  them  in  this  world.  When  a  mother  becomes 
a  wage  earner  she  can  neither  care  properly  for  her  own 
health,  rear  her  children  aright,  nor  make  her  home  what  it 
should  be  for  her  husband,  her   children  or  herself.     Thou- 


AFFIRMATIVE  3 

sands  of  girls  are  forced  to  lead  a  life  of  shame  and  prosti- 
tution because  their  wages  are  insufficient  to  provide  the 
necessaries  of  life. 

Such  conditions  are  a  disgrace  to  our  nation,  nevertheless 
they  exist.  As  we  stand  in  the  midst  of  these  deplorable 
conditions  we  cannot  believe  that  the  intelligence  of  this  age 
will  much  longer  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  their  pitiable  cries.  Such 
is  the  light  in  which  the  question  we  are  discussing  to-night 
must  be  considered.  Our  opponents  will  probably  charge 
us  with  trying  to  trick  you  into  sympathy  with  our  cause, 
but  such  is  not  the  case.  It  is  able  to  stand  or  fall  on  its 
own  merits.  We  picture  these  deplorable  conditions  only 
because  they  force  themselves  upon  us  by  their  immediate 
bearing  upon  the  problem  of  wages,  and  also  to  show  that 
the  cause  of  the  sweating  evil  is  the  low  wage.  It  is  because 
of  these  conditions  that  we  the  Affirmative  propose  Minimum 
Wage  legislation. 

We,  the  Affirmative,  in  upholding  the  contention  that 
present  industrial  conditions  demand  Minimum  Wage  legisla- 
tion, do  not  contend  that  such  legislation  will  prove  a  panacea 
for  all  our  ills,  but  we  do  maintain  that  it  is  the  best  remedy 
for  present  conditions,  and  that  adequate  remedy  can  be 
found  only  in  wage  legislation.  Any  proposal  to  reform  an 
existing  evil  is  always  met  with  the  demand  for  a  definitely 
outlined  and  detailed  plan.  This  demand  always  comes  from 
opponents  of  the  proposition  with  the  hope  that  some  minor 
points  will  be  defective,  and  through  these  they  will  be 
enabled  to  attack  the  whole  great  principle  involved.  Our 
opponents  to-night  will  probably  attempt  to  pile  up  an  innu- 
merable mass  of  minor  objections  in  an  effort  to  attack  the 
whole  great  principle  involved,  when  in  reality  these  minor 
points  are  not  defective,  and  if  really  defective  would  be  cor- 
rected after  a  short  time  in  practice.  In  the  face  of  these 
facts  we,  the  Affirmative,  realize  how  impossible  it  is  to  out- 
line a  plan  so  perfect  as  not  to  admit  of  improvement. 

Now,  honorable  judges,  we  have  showed  to  you  that  the 
conditions  of  the  exploited  and  unprotected  workers  are  de- 
plorable, and  that  the  cause  of  these  conditions  is  the  low 
wage,  and  that  each  has  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  other, 
therefore   the    Minimum   Wage   is   based    upon    the    principle 


4  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

that  the  best  way  to  neutralize  the  evils  produced  by  poverty 
is  to  prevent  poverty  and  the  only  way  to  prevent  poverty 
among  our  sweated  workers  is  to  secure  for  them  a  higher 
wage,  or  at  least  a  living  wage.  Therefore  since  the  low  wage 
is  responsible  for  the  evils  brought  about  by  sweating,  we 
maintain  that  the  only  possible  way  to  alleviate  the  condi- 
tions of  the  sweated  workers  is  through  minim,um  wage  legis- 
lation. It  is  almost  impossible  to  believe  that  while  in  the 
last  twenty  years  the  cost  of  living  has  steadily  risen  the 
wages  oi  our  sweated  labor  has  decreased  instead  of  in- 
creased. This  is  shown  by  Adams  and  Sumner  in  their  book 
on  "Labor  Problems."  This  statement  was  verified  by  the 
investigators  of  Elizabeth  C.  Watson,  who  writes  in  the  Sur- 
vey, 191 1.  Constance  Smith,  in  her  book  on  "Labor,"  on  page 
3,  says  that  the  sweated  worker  is  worse  paid  to-day  than 
she  was  twenty  years  ago.  These  facts,  combined  with  the 
deplorable  conditions  of  our  sweated  labor,  stand  out  as  evi- 
dence that  Minimum  Wage  legislation  is  needed  in  our 
sweated  industries  to  assure  a  living  wage.  The  Affirmative 
maintain  that  every  one  who  is  willing  to  work  and  is  physic- 
ally, mentally  and  morally  sound,  is  entitled  to  a  living  wage 
and  fair  conditions  under  which  such  a  wage  may  be  earned. 
This  is  an  inalienable  right  of  every  citizen.  The  Affirma- 
tive propose  to  ^neutralize  the  evils  of  the  industrial  world 
by  having  the  various  states  enact  Minimum  Wage  laws 
which  shall  provide  for  wage  boards,  similar  to  those  in  Vic- 
toria, New  Zealand,  England  and  our  own  states,  viz.,  Massa- 
chusetts, Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  California,  Utah,  Oregon  and 
others.  While  the  laws  enacted  in  these  states  and  countries 
vary  in  detail,  the  same  great  principle  runs  through  all  the 
plans. 

These  wage  boards  would  be  composed  of  a  certain  num- 
ber of  men  or  women,  equally  attentive  to  both  the  interests 
of  labor  and  capital.  It  would  be  the  duty  of  these  boards  to 
investigate  the  conditions  of  labor  in  the  factories  of  each 
state,  and  to  determine  the  lowest  possible  decent  living  wage 
in  each  community  or  section,  and  set  a  wage  below  which  it 
would  be  .illegal  for  an  employer  to  pay.  Such  a  law  would 
be  both  elastic  and  variable;  that  is  the  wage  boards  which 
we  have  suggested  will  fix  a  wage  that  can  be  changed  to 


1 

e       1 


AFFIRMATIVE  5 

meet  conditions;  not  one  that  will  forever  remain  the  same. 
When  prices  rise  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  wage  boards  to 
see  that  wages  are  changed  to  meet  conditions.  In  every 
■instance  where  the  minimum  wage  has  been  adopted  the  wage 
"boards  have  been  given  the  power  to  fix  different  rates  of 
wages  for  different  sections  of  the  state  if  the  cost  of  living 
demanded  it;  the  board  can  fix  different  rates  of  wages  for 
different  classes  and  grades  of  labor;  it  may  fix  either  a  time 
rate  or  piecework  rate  of  wages  or  both;  the  board  can  also 
grant  permits  to  learners,  minors,  apprentices,  old  or  infirm 
people,  thus  we  see  that  the  law  is  perfectly  elastic. 

Our  opponents  may  suggest  other  remedies,  among  these 
is  that  of  organization.  But  in  our  sweated  industries  where 
very  little  skill  is  needed,  organization  is  impossible,  because 
the  workers  are  poor,  weak  and  ignorant,  and  because  they 
cannot  organize  they  continue  to  be  poor,  weak  and  ignorant. 
The  need  of  work  by  this  class  is  so  great  and  the  workers 
so  numerous  that  the  employers  may  dictate  their  own  terms, 
limited  only  by  their  sense  of  social  responsibility.  Thus  we 
see  that  organization  is  practically  impossible  among  our 
sweated  workers.  They  may  suggest  industrial  education, 
sanitary  laws,  restriction  of  immigration,  which  are  all  good, 
but  do  not  strike  at  the  roots  of  the  evil,  and  in  themselves 
cannot  solve  the  problem.  Experience  has  shown  that  many 
of  these  laws  do  not  and  cannot  remedy  the  evil  of  the  low 
wage.  How  in  the  name  of  common  sense  can  you  educate 
a  child  so  long  as  that  child  must  spend  its  whole  time  in 
earning  a  living?  How  can  sanitary  laws  help  a  class  that 
have  not  the  money  to  provide  for  themselves  comfortable 
clothing  and  decent  food,  nor  time  for  recreation  and  rest, 
all  of  which  are  necessary  to  higher  efficiency  and  good 
health?  Such  laws  work  well  along  with  the  minimum  wage, 
tftit  they  will  not  and  cannot  take  its  place.  The  essence  of 
the  sweating  evil  is  the  low  wage,  and  such  proposed  laws  do 
not  strike  at  the  roots  of  this  evil.  The  minimum  wage  is 
the  only  way  to  neutralize  the  evils  of  the  sweating  system, 
and  not  until  the  worker  is  given  a  wage  sufficient  to  cover 
the  costs  of  a  decent  living  will  this  evil  be  mitigated. 

The  minimum  wage,  as  many  think,  is  not  a  theoretical 
movement,  neither  is  it  new  or  untried.     It  has  showed  itself 


6  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

in  actual  experience  to  be  successful,  and  has  proved  itself 
to  be  an  adequate  remedy  for  the  evils  of  the  low  wage.  In 
1896  Victoria  enacted  a  wage  law  to  be  enforced  in  five 
sweated  trades.  Naturally  this  was  opposed  by  all  the  argu- 
ments with  which  you  will  be  familiar  at  the  close  of  this 
debate.  Its  opponents  maintained  that  it  was  against  the  laws 
of  political  economy;  that  it  would  restrict  employment;  that 
it  would  drive  away  capital ;  that  it  would  be  cruel  to  the 
aged  worker  and  the  poor  widow;  that  it  could  not  be  carried 
out  in  practice,  and  so  on  and  so  forth.  'Its  opponents,  both 
in  Europe  and  America,  have  hastened  to  report  that  it  has 
broken  down.  But  what  has  been  the  result?  In  the  trades 
to  which  the  law  was  first  applied  the  wages  of  sweated  labor 
have  gone  up  thirty-five  per  cent;  the  hours  of  labor  have 
been  reduced;  and  the  actual  number  of  persons  employed, 
far  from  falling,  has  in  all  cases,  relative  to  the  total  popu- 
lation, greatly  increased.  Thus  we  see  that  the  minimum 
wage  does  not  spell  ruin  for  the  country  in  which  it  is 
adopted,  but  rather  shows  itself  to  be  an  adequate  remedy  for 
industrial  evils.  One  of  the  strongest  arguments  in  Australia 
in  favor  of  the  minimum  wage  is  the  fact  that  during  the 
past  eighteen  years  the  law  has  been  reenacted  five  times  and 
has  been  extended  to  the  whole  of  the  Australian  colonies, 
including  every  province  in  Australia.  The  law  has  gradually 
been  extended  to  various  industries,  until  to-day  almost  every 
industry  in  these  colonies  is  under  the  supervision  of  the 
Minimum  Wage.  And  when  a  law  has  been  in  operation 
for  eighteen  years  in  a  highly  developed  and  civilized  coun- 
try, and  has  gradually  been  extended  instead  of  limited,  and 
during  that  time  received  the  approval  of  the  entire  public, 
we  can  safely  conclude  that  such  a  law  has  brought  about 
good  results  regardless  of  what  its  opponents  may  say  against 
it.  Such  has  been  the  history  of  the  Minimum  Wage  in 
Australia.  Because  of  its  success  in  the  Australian  countries 
the  United  States  and  England  sent  special  investigators  to 
study  the  merits  of  the  law.  Dr.  Victor  S.  Clark,  the  man 
sent  by  our  government,  says  in  the  No.  49  Bulletin  of  the 
Bureau  of  Labor,  page  1225,  that  the  measure  is  a  success 
beyond  expectation,  and  could  be  operated  in  our  own  states 
with  success  and  without  making  a  bold  departure  from  our 


AFFIRMATIVE  7 

precedents  and  institutions.  Mr.  Aves,  the  man  sent  by- 
England,  made  such  a  satisfactory  and  favorable  report  that 
the  Houses  of  Lords  and  Commons  immediately  wrote  the 
English  Wage  Boards  Acts  of  1909,  which  went  into  effect 
January,  1910.  We  do  not  contend  that  its  success  in  these 
countries  signifies  that  it  will  be  a  success  here,  but  we  think 
the  analogy  strong,  and  that  its  continued  success  in  these 
countries  is  at  least  a  strong  argument  for  the  Affirmative. 

In  the  next  place  our  plan  is  stamped  with  the  approval  of 
the  best  authorities  on  the  subject  of  labor  legislation.  The 
most  important  students  of  political  economy  in  our  country 
who  have  voiced  their  approval  of  the  Minimum  Wage  are: 
Taussig,  of  Harvard;  Seager,  of  Columbia;  Ely  and  Commons, 
of  Wisconsin;  Adams,  of  Cornell;  and  John  A.  Ryan.  Clark 
and  Aves,  men  sent  by  the  United  States  and  England  to 
investigate  the  law  in  Australia,  have  put  themselves  on 
record  as  favoring  such  a  plan.  And  the  greatest  legislative 
body  of  England  voiced  its  approval  of  such  a  measure. 
We  have  cited  to  you  a  few  of  the  students  of  political  econ- 
omy who  are  favorable  to  the  Minimum  Wage  in  order  that 
you  may  see  it  is  not  a  theoretical  movement,  but  is  based 
upon  a  sound  economic  theory,  and  that  it  is  not  being  advo- 
cated by  a  few  Socialists  and  radicals,  but  by  a  truly  imposing 
array  of  the  most  level-headed  and  soundest-minded  men  in 
the  world. 

In  the  next  place  Minimum  Wage  legislation  is  the  logical 
and  natural  outgrowth  of  all  previous  labor  legislation. 
Within  the  last  fifty  years  labor  legislation  in  the  United 
States  has  given  us  the  eight-hour  day;  child  labor  laws,  and 
sanitation  and  factory  inspection  laws.  All  these  laws  are 
good,  but  the  public  is  coming  to  realize  the  fact  that  these 
laws  fail  to  mitigate  the  evils  of  sweating,  and  as  a  result  are 
turning  to  the  Minimum  Wage  as  the  most  adequate  remedy 
for  the  sweating  evil.  All  these  laws  embody  the  same  great 
principle  as  the  Minimum  Wage.  The  principle  of  the  Mini- 
mum Wage  is  no  more  radical  or  no  more  interferes  with  an 
economic  law  than  does  the  eight-hour  law,  a  law  which  has 
shown  itself  in  actual  practice  to  be  a  benefit  to  the  indus- 
trial world.  To  say  that  a  woman  shall  not  contract  to  work 
for  less  than  a  decent  wage  is  to  go  no  farther  than  to  say 


8  COMPULSORY   MINIMUM   WAGE 

that  she  shall  not  contract  to  work  more  than  eight  or  ten 
hours,  or  under  unwholesome  conditions  which  may  affect 
her  as  the  potential  mother  of  future  generations.  Indeed, 
it  is  much  easier  to  trace  a  social  connection  between  work- 
ing for  wages  inadequate  to  maintain  a  decent  living  and 
working  more  than  eight  or  even  ten  hours  a  day.  Already 
nine  states  of  the  Union  have  enacted  Minimum  Wage  laws, 
and  last  year  one  of  the  great  political  parties  had  a  Mini- 
mum Wage  plank  in  its  platform.  This  shows  that  the 
public  believes  the  Minimum  Wage  to  be  good;  it  also  serves 
to  show  that  the  economic  theory  of  it  is  sound  enough  to 
be  at  least  worthy  of  a  trial.  Honorable  judges,  so  far  in  my 
argument  I  have  shown  that  present  industrial  conditions 
demand  relief,  and  that  the  Minimum  Wage  is  the  most 
adequate  way  to  bring  this  relief  about. 

In  the  next  place  I  will  attempt  to  show  that  Minimum 
Wage  legislation  will  increase  the  efficiency  and  productivit}^ 
of  the  state's  industry.  The  principal  question  for  us  to 
consider  is  how  the  adoption  and  enforcement  of  a  definite 
minimum  of  wages  among  the  exploited  and  unprotected 
labor  is  likely  to  afifect,  both  immediately  and  in  the  long 
run,  the  productivity  and  efficiency  of  the  state's  industry. 
In  regard  to  this  point  the  verdict  of  economic  theory,  what- 
ever it  may  be  worth,  is  I  submit  emphatic  and  clear.  To 
such  economists  as  Seager  of  Columbia  and  Taussig  of  Har- 
vard there  seems  nothing  in  the  device  of  a  legal  minimum 
of  wages  that  is  in  any  way  calculated  to  diminish  effici- 
ency or  productivity.  On  the  contrary,  all  experience  as 
well  as  all  theory  seems  to  show  that,  as  compared  with  no 
regulation  of  wages,  or  with  leaving  the  employer  free  to 
deal  individually  with  each  operative,  it  must  tend  actually  to 
increase  the  productivity  of  the  industry.  Here  we  have,  in 
fact,  the  lesson  of  actual  experience  from  a  whole  century 
of  industrial  history.  It  is  only  necessary  to  watch  in  opera- 
tion analogous  common  rules,  such  as  the  eight-hour  law, 
child  labor  laws  and  sanitation  and  factory  inspection  laws 
to  see  that  laws  regulating  labor  tend  to  increase  the  state's 
productivity.  Of  course,  every  employer  naturally  prefers  to 
be  free  to  do  whatever  he^'chooses  and  to  compete  in  any  way 
he  pleases.     And  he  has  a  perfect  right  to  do  so,  so  long  as 


AFFIRMATIVE  9 

that  right  does  not  interfere  with  society's  right.  But  the 
enforcement  in  any  industry  of  a  Minimum  Wage  does  not 
prevent  the  employer's  choice  of  one  man  rather  than  another,  . 
or  forbid  him  to  pick  out  of  a  body  of  workers  the  strongest, 
the  most  skillful,  or  the  best  workman.  It  does  not  even 
limit  the  intensity  of  such  competition  or  the  freedom  of  the 
employer  to  take  advantage  of  it.  All  that  it  does  is  to  trans- 
fer the  pressure  from  one  element  in  the  bargain  to  the  other: 
from  the  wage  to  the  work,  from  the  price  to  quality. 

Furthermore,  the  Minimum  Wage  will  compel  an  em- 
ployer to  make  his  factory  more  efficient  and  productive,  for 
it  will  force  him  to  do  away  with  parasitic  and  subsidized 
labor  and  hire  that  labor  which  is  more  efficient.  If  the  con- 
ditions of  employment  are  unregulated,  it  will  in  many  cases 
pay  an  employer  not  to  select  the  best  workman,  but  to  give 
preference  to  an  incompetent  or  infirm  man,  provided  that 
he  can  hire  him  at  a  sufficiently  low  wage,  make  him  work 
successive  and  irregular  hours,  or  subject  him  to  unsanitary 
or  dangerous  conditions.  By  so  doing  the  employer  may 
make  more  profit,  out  of  inefficient  workmen  than  out  of 
good  workmen.  With  a  legal  Minimum  Wage,  this  fre- 
quent lowering  of  productivity  is  prevented.  If  an  employer 
cannot  go  below  a  common  minimum  rate,  and  is  unable  to 
grade  the  other  conditions  of  employment  down  to  the  level 
of  the  lowest  and  most  necessitous  wage  earner  in  his  estab- 
lishment, he  is  economically  impelled  to  do  his  utmost  to 
raise  the  level  of  efficiency  of  his  workers.  The  Minimum 
Wage  prevents  an  employer  from  taking  into  his  employment 
an  old  man  or  a  physical  or  moral  invalid.  Thus  we  see  that 
the  Minimum  Wage  will  increase  the  productivity  of  the 
state's  industry  by  acting  as  a  perpetual  stimulus  to  the 
selection  of  the  fittest  men  for  employment.  Many  object 
to  the  Minimum  Wage  because  it  prevents  an  employer  from 
selecting  old  or  infirm  workers.  But  it  is  a  hard,  cold  fact 
that  cannot  be  denied  that  the  aggregate  efficiency  of  the- 
state's  industry  is  promoted  by  every  situation  being  filled 
by  the  most  available  candidate.  This  fact  is  verified  by  the: 
history  of  the  Minimum  Wage  in  Victoria.  During  the 
eighteen    years   it    has    been    in    force    there    the    number   of 


lo  COMPULSORY   MINIMUM   WAGE 

factories  have  increased  by  sixty  per  cent  and  the  number  of 
workers  in  them  more  than  doubled. 

One  of  the  most  serious  dangers  arising  from  the  existence 
of  a  large  amount  of  subsidized  labor,  such  as  that  of  women 
and  minors  partly  supported  by  some  industry,  lies  in  the  low 
standard  set  for  wages,  in  general,  and  the  advantage  given 
to  unscrupulous  employers  to  make  the  best  labor  bargains 
possible,  without  consideration  of  the  general  social  effect. 
Women  and  minors  by  their  very  limitations  are  unable  of 
themselves  to  form  effective  organizations,  and  thus  gain 
the  legitimate  advantages  of  collective  bargaining.  They  are 
less  mobile  than  men,  they  are  more  attached  to  locality  and 
they  are  more  easily  coerced. 

The  continued  efficiency  of  a  nation's  industry  depends  on 
the  continuance  of  its  citizens  in  health  and  strength.  For 
an  industry  to  be  economically  self-supporting  it  must,  there- 
fore, maintain  its  full  establishment  of  workers,  unimpaired 
in  numbers  and  vigor.  If  the  employers  in  a  particular  trade 
are  able  to  take  such  advantage  of  the  necessities  of  their 
work  people  as  to  hire  them  for  wages  actually  insufficient  to 
provide  enough  food,  clothing  and  shelter  to  maintain  them 
in  average  health;  if  they  are  able  to  work  them  for  hours 
so  long  as  to  deprive  them  of  adequate  rest  and  recreation; 
or  if  they  can  subject  them  to  conditions  so  dangerous  or 
unsanitary  as  positively  to  shorten  their  lives,  that  trade  is 
clearly  obtaining  a  supply  of  labor  force  which  it  does  not 
pay  for.  Such  parasitic  trades  are  deteriorating  the  physique, 
intelligence  and  character  of  their  workers;  they  are  drawing 
on  the  capital  stock  of  the  nation.  If  employers  are  allowed 
to  sweat  their  labor,  the  nation  will,  generation  by  genera- 
tion, steadily  degrade  in  character  and  national  efficiency.  If 
a  girl  works  for  $5  a  week,  and  has  to  pay  $9  a  week  for 
room,  board,  clothing  and  laundry,  she  is  really  contrib- 
uting not  less  than  $4  a  week  subsidy  to  the  profits  of  that 
industry.  The  question  is,  where  does  she  get  the  $4? 
Either  she  is  depriving  herself  of  many  of  the  necessaries 
conducive  to  good  health,  or  it  is  taken  from  the  earnings 
of  shame.  If  any  industry  is  so  necessary  to  society  that  it 
must  be  subsidized,  the  subsidy  should  come  from  other 
sources  than  the  deprivation  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  or  the 


AFFIRMATIVE  ii 

earnings  of  a  life  of  shame.  In  such  parasitic  industries  the 
burden  is  placed  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  very  class  least 
capable  of  bearing  it,  and  is  gradually  bound  to  degrade  the 
efficiency  and  productivity  of  the  nation's  industry. 

Our  opponents  may  claim  that  the  enforcement  of  the 
Minimum  Wage  in  any  sweated  industry  will  involve  the  de- 
struction of  that  industry,  but  this  is  by  no  means  true.  We, 
the  Affirmative,  maintain  that  our  industries  in  general  are 
not  dependent  upon  such  underpaid  labor  and  that  by  gradual 
adjustment  of  wage  scales  the  present  unfortunate  conditions 
in  a  number  of  employments  could  be  improved  without  in- 
jury to  the  employing  interests.  The  existence  of  negro 
slavery  in  the  Southern  States  made,  while  it  lasted,  any 
other  method  of  carrying  on  industry  economically  impos- 
sible, but  it  was  not  really  an  economic  advantage  to  the 
cotton-growers.  When  slavery  was  done  away  with  it  did 
not  injure  the  cotton  industry,  but  rather  stimulated  it.  It 
is  a  fact  that  if  employers  pay  more  the  labor  would  be 
worth  more.  In  so  far  as  this  proves  to  be  the  case,  the 
Minimum  Wage  will  raise  the  standard  of  life  without  loss  of 
trade,  without  cost  to  employer  and  without  disadvantage  to 
the  community.  Moreover,  the  mere  fact  that  employers  are 
at  present  paying  lower  wages  than  the  proposed  minimum 
is  no  proof  that  the  labor  is  not  worth  more  to  them;  for  the 
wages  of  the  lowest  grade  of  labor  are  fixed  not  by  the 
worth  in  any  sense,  but  largely  by  the  urgent  needs  of  the 
marginal  man,  or  rather  the  marginal  woman.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  an  industry  is  dependent  on  such  underpaid  labor 
its  existence,  its  value  to  the  commonwealth  is  useless  and 
it  should  be  forced  out  of  business,  or  compelled  to  invest  its 
capital  in  channels  where  it  can  pay  a  living  wage  to  its 
workers.  This,  honorable  judges,  concludes  my  argument. 
In  the  course  of  my  argument  I  have  shown  to  you  that 
present  industrial  conditions  demand  relief  and  that  the 
Minimum  Wage  is  the  most  adequate  way  to  bring  this  relief 
about.  And  lastly,  that  such  a  law  would  increase  the 
efficiency  and  productivity  of  the  state's  industry.  I  will  now 
leave  the  Affirmative  argument  to  be  continued  by  my  hon- 
orable colleague. 


SECOND  AFFIRMATIVE  SPEECH 
Bruce  F.  Gates 

I  wish  to  continue  the  argument  in  favor  of  a  legal  Mini- 
mum Wage.  My  colleague  has  already  shown  you  that  pres- 
ent industrial  conditions  are  such  that  relief  is  demanded, 
especially  \  for  the  unprotected  worker.  'When  you  consider 
that  the  average  wage  of  the  unskilled  workers  in  the  candy 
factories,  laundries  and  department  stores  is  from  $4  to  $5 
per  week  and  that  these  workers  are  subjected  to  the  poorest 
of  conditions,  endangering  their  own  health  and  that  of  the 
next  generation,  you  must  agree  with  us  that  conditions  are 
bad  and  that  they  demand  relief. 

The  gentlemen  of  the  Negative  cannot  dodge  these  facts 
by  simply  admitting  their  truth.  Deplore  them  as  they  will, 
the  facts  remain  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  remedy 
such  conditions  because  the  fundamental  purpose  of  the  state 
is  to  promote  social  welfare.  The  question  now  confronting 
us  is  what  is  the  best  means  to  overcome  these  conditions. 

My  colleague  has  outlined  the  general  plan  of  the  Mini- 
mum Wage  and  I  believe  has  clearly  proved  his  first  main 
point,  namely,  that  the  Minimum  Wage  is  the  most  adequate 
remedy  for  these  conditions,  because  it  strikes  at  the  very 
root  of  the  evil  of  poverty  and  low  wages.  He  also  showed 
you  that  the  Minimum  Wage  is  not  an  untried  theory,  but  a 
practicable,  workable  reality  and  has  had  continuous  success 
in  Australia,  New  Zealand  and  England  and  has  been  adopted 
by  nine  of  our  own  states  within  the  last  three  years.  His 
second  main  point  was  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  increase 
the  efficiency  and  productivity  of  the  nation's  industry  by 
doing  away  with  parasitic  and  subsidized  labor,  and  protect 
the  honest  employer  from  the  undejcutting  of  the  unscru- 
pulous one. 

In^  continuing  the  debate  for  the  Affirmative,  I  will  treat 
the  Minimum  Wage  in  its  relation  (i)  to  society  and  (2)  to 
the  worker.  In  the*  first  place  we  believe  that  the  Minimum 
Wage  will  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  state,  because 
it  will  be  the  best  means  of  securing  industrial  peace.  The 
constant    quarrels    between    employer    and    worker    and    the 


14  COMPULSORY   MINIMUM   WAGE 

resulting  discomfort  to  society  in  general  are  so  well  known 
by  everyone  here  that  I  need  only  to  call  them  to  mind.  We 
all  feel  many  times  that  this  trouble  could  be  averted  by 
sensible  arbitration — but  it  isn't.  However,  under  the  Mini- 
mum Wage,  boards  are  provided  for,  consisting  of  repre- 
sentatives from  both  employer  and  worker.  These  rep're- 
sentatives  present  their  respective  side  of  the  question  and 
know  that  unless  they  arbitrate  satisfactorily  tWe  law  will 
settle  it  for  them.  Common  sense  tells  us  that  this  plan  will 
insure  industrial  peace  and  bring  the  two  factions  to  a  better 
understanding  of  each  other,  and  the  facts  can't  be  denied. 
In  J.  R.  Common's  book  on  "Trade  Unionism  and  Labor 
Problems,"  speaking  of  Australia,  he  says:  "The  act  has 
prevented  strikes  of  any  magnitude  and  has  on  the  whole 
brought  about  a  better  relation  between  employers  and  em- 
ployees." The  Review  of  Reviews,  for  February,  1913,  says: 
"One  thing  that  is  noticeable  in  Wisconsin's  experience  is 
the  active  cooperation  of  employers  and  employees." 

The  second  reason  why  the  Minimum  Wage  will  promote 
the  general  welfare  of  the  state  is  becaus^  it  will  prevent 
national  degradation  by  protecting  womeK  workers.  The 
welfare  of  society  demands  the  protection  oJ^women  from 
those  influences  which  undermine  their  health  and  morals 
and  the  protection  of  children  from  those  influences  which 
stunt  their  natural  development.  Social  progress  is  wrapped 
up  in  the  health  and  morals  of  a  nation's  mothers.  We  live 
in  an  age  which  is  demanding  that  children  be  "well  born." 
This  necessitates  healthy  motherhood.  Hence  it  is  that  the 
state  must  be  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  living  wages, 
reasonable  hours  and  decent  conditions  for  its  laboring 
women  and  children.  As  it  is  now,  children  born  into  fam- 
ilies of  unprotected  workers  are  deprived  of  schooling  and 
thrust  into  factories,  the  women  are  rendered  unfit  for  the 
burdens  of  motherhood  and  the  children  of  the  next  genera- 
tion grow  up  even  less  efficient  than  their  parents. 

The  industrial  loss  to  the  community  is  plainly  seen.  Be- 
sides this,  there  is  a  direct  financial  loss  in  public  and  private 
outlay  for  relief.  The  direct  cause  of  this  is  low  wages, 
which  force  all  members  of  the  family  into  the  factory.  The 
sole  duty  of  the   state  is   social  welfare   and   social  welfare 


AFFIRMATIVE  15 

means  the  development  of  each  individual's  personality. 
When  the  opportunity  for  this  development  is  lacking  in  any 
class  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  state  to  step  in  and  pro- 
tect that  class. 

The  third  reason  why  the  Minimum  Wage  will  promote 
the  general  welfare  of  the  state  is  because  it  will  separate 
the  efficient  from  the  inefficient  worker.  The  gentlemen  of 
the  Negative  have  argued  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  throw 
a  large  number  of  people  out  of  employment.  I  do  not  agree 
that  it  will  throw  a  large  number  out  of  work,  but  it  will 
undoubtedly  throw  some  out.  It  will  throw  out  of  employ- 
ment just  those  people  who  are  not  able  to  earn  the  Mini- 
mum Wage.  As  my  colleague  has  told  you,  the  Minimum 
Wage  will  be  just  a  decent  living  wage,  and  so  just  those 
people  who  cannot  earn  enough  to  live  on  decently  will  be 
thrown  out  of  work.  Now,  I  think  you  will  all  agree  with 
me  that  any  able-bodied,  able-minded  man  or  woman  can 
earn  enough  to  live  on  decently,  and  if  there  is  anyone  who 
really  can't  produce  enough  to  live  on,  that  person  is  deficient 
in  some  way  and  ought  to  be  taken  out  of  the  factory  and 
be  examined  scientifically  by  the  state  and  taken  care  of 
Avith  the  view  of  overcoming  that  deficiency  if  possible  and 
at  least  preventing  the  increase  of  such  defectives  in  the 
coming  generations.  Say  nothing  about  the  individuals,  the 
state  owes  this  much  to  the  future  generations  and  the 
welfare  of  our  nation. 

Then,  how  about  the  large  number  of  exploited  workers 
now  receiving  a  wage  lower  than  a  living  wage,  but  who 
can  and  do  produce  enough  to  receive  a  living  wage?  Under 
the  Minimum  Wage  law  these  people  would  receive  at  least 
the  Minimum  Wage  for  their  industry,  and  all  these  people 
would  be  ab4e  to  fit  their  children  for  and  to  rise  themselves 
into  higher  occupations.  More  and  better  food  and  clothing 
could  be  provided,  the  mother  could  be  kept  in  the  home  to 
attend  to  her  natural  duties.  Besides  this  more  money  would 
be  received  by  these  wage  earners  and  more  spent  for  the 
commodities  of  life.  This  would  cause  an  increase  in  pro- 
duction and  furnish  more  work  for  laborers  previously  work- 
ing short  time  or  entirely  out  of  work. 

So  we   see    that   the   employables    will   receive  their   just 


i6  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

wage  and  the  unemployables  will  be  placed  in  a  separate 
class  to  be  studied  and  treated  for  their  own  benefit  as  well 
as  that  of  the  state. 

If  then,  honorable  judges,  I  have  shown  you  that  (i)  the 
Minimum  Wage  will  be  the  best  means  of  insuring  industrial 
peace,  (2)  that  it  will  prevent  national  degradation  by  pro- 
tecting women  workers,  and  that  (3)  it  will  separate  the 
efficient  from  the  inefficient  workers,  it  must  follow  that  the 
Minimum  Wage  will  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  state. 

I  will  now  proceed  with  my  second  main  point,  namely, 
The  Minimum  Wage  will  give  the  unprotected  worker  a 
decent  living  and  a  fair  opportunity  in  the  industrial  world. 
This  is  so  (i)  because  it  will  prevent  the  exploitation  of  the 
helpless  worker.  Before  I  go  farther  in  the  discussion  of  the 
worker,  I  wish  to  emphasize  what  my  colleague  brought  out 
regarding  the  class  of  labor  the  Minimum  Wage  affects 
namely,  the  unskilled,  exploited  worker.  The  fact  that  this 
class  of  labor  receives  poor  wages  is  generally  known,  but 
its  full  significance  is  seldom  realized.  Did  you  ever  wonder 
how  a  man  can  support  a  family  on  $400  a  year,  or  how  a 
girl  can  live  in  a  strange  city  on  $4  a  week?  That's  just 
what  hundreds  are  trying  to  do.  My  opponents  may  agree 
that  these  conditions  are  deplorable,  but  contend  that  it  does 
not  mean  the  workers  are  exploited.  What  will  they  say 
when  I  refer  them  to  the  report  of  the  Massachusetts  Com- 
mission, where  it  says  that  in  one  factory  24  per  cent  of  the 
laborers  received  less  than  $4  a  week,  while  in  a  similar 
factory,  under  the  same  conditions,  only  i  per  cent  received 
less  than  $4.  Similar  cases  are  numerous  in  Massachusetts 
and  other  states.  If  Jones  is  paying  his  help  a  fair  wage  and 
making  a  profit,  Smith  must  be  exploiting  his  help.  But  you 
ask:  Why  do  these  people  stand  for  this  exploftation?  Be- 
cause they  can't  help  it.  These  people  are  so  poor,  weak 
and  ignorant  they  can't  organize,  and  so  they  remain  poor, 
weak  and  ignorant.  But  even  in  the  face  of  these  facts  is 
it  the  duty  or  right  of  the  state  to  interfere?  It  surely  is! 
The  laborer's  right  to  a  living  wage  is  his  right  to 
obtain,  under  reasonable  conditions,  sufficient  of  the  earth's 
products  to  afford  him  a  decent  living.  True  this  right,  like 
all  rights,  is  based  on  man's  intrinsic  value,  but  it  is  as  valid 


AFFIRMATIVE  17 

as  his  right  to  life.  You  and  I  are  bound  to  respect  man's 
right  to  life  and  the  specific  obligation  falls  on  those  people 
who  come  in  contact  with  him.  In  the  case  of  the  worker 
the  employer  is  responsible  and  if  he  shirks  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  state  in  the  name  of  common  justice  to  intercede,  just  as 
the  state  intercedes  in  all  cases  where  undue  advantage  is 
taken. 

Another  reason  why  the  Minimum  Wage  will  be  a  benefit 
to  the  unprotected  worker  is  because  it  will  stimulate  en- 
deavor and  increase  efficiency.  When  a  Minimum  Wage 
scale  goes  into  effect  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  all  workers 
who  cannot  earn  the  minimum  will  be  thrown  out  of  work. 
However,  that  does  not  mean  that  all  those  receiving  less 
than  the  minimum  will  be  thrown  out,  for  there  is  no  doubt 
but  that  a  large  number  of  these  exploited  workers  produce 
enough  to  earn  a  wage  at  least  as  high  as  the  minimum,  but 
have  been  forced  to  work  for  less  because  the  large  supply 
of  unskilled  workers  compared  to  the  demand  for  their 
product  has  forced  them  to  work  for  whatever  they  can  get 
in  order  to  live  from  day  to  day.  Now  when  this  minimum 
Wage  scale  goes  into  effect  the  workers  will  know  that  they 
must  prove  to  their  employer  that  they  are  worth  the  mini- 
mum, or  they  will  lose  their  jobs.  Do  you  want  to  lose 
your  job?  Of  course  not.  These  people  need  their  jobs 
worse  than  you  and  I  need  ours,  because  they  live  from  hand 
to  mouth.  It  is  perfectly  obvious,  then,  that  they  will  strain 
every  effort  to  keep  their  jobs — to  produce  at  least  the 
Minimum  Wage  and  to  do  this  they  must  show  their  em- 
ployer that  they  are  worth  it.  Those  workers  who  have  not 
been  producing  enough  to  justify  the  Minimum  Wage  will 
have  to  increase  their  efficiency  in  order  to  hold  their  jobs. 

So  we  see,  the  Minimum  Wage  automatically  forces  every 
woVker  who  has  been  receiving  less  than  the  minimum  to 
strive  harder,  and  that  means  increased  efficiency.  The  Mini- 
mum Wage  will  be  a  goal  toward  which  they  must  constantly 
strive  and  constant  strife  toward  a  goal  is  the  only  way  to 
increase  efficiency. 

Now  let  us  consider  the  Minimum  Wage  and  its  tendency 
to  increase  efficiency,  from  another  angle.  The  worker  who 
has  been  receiving  less  than  the  minimum  has  been  depriv- 


i8  COMPULSORY   MINIMUM   WAGE 

ing  himself  and  his  family  of  some  of  the  necessities  and  all 
the  pleasures  of  life  and  has  been  dominated  by  a  sour  feeling 
of  discontent.  When,  through  the  Minimum  Wage  he  re- 
ceives a  wage  on  which  he  can  live  decently,  he  can  have 
three  meals  a  day,  a  warmer  house,  more  and  better  clothes; 
he  can  put  his  children  in  school  and  his  wife  in  his  home. 
The  result  will  be  a  stronger,  better  nourished  boy,  a  happier 
family,  a  more  cheery  home  and  a  better  attitude  toward  his 
work.  Can  there  be  any  doubt  but  that  this  will  give  the 
worker  new  life,  increased  strength  and  energy  and  greater 
efficiency?  The  employer  knows  that  it  pays  to  keep  his 
horses  in  the  best  condition,  but  when  his  men  and  women 
weaken  he  merely  casts  them  aside  and  draws  on  the  ever 
increasing  supply.  So  we  see  the  Minimum  Wage,  by  forc- 
ing a  selection  of  the  efficient,  places  a  goal  for  the  worker 
and  stimulates  endeavor  and  so  increases  efficiency.  It  also 
endows  the  worker's  physical  and  mental  self  with  an 
increased  power  of  production. 

The  third  reason  why  the  Minimum  Wage  will  benefit  the 
unprotected  worker  is  because  it  will  make  the  freedom  of 
contract  an  actuality.  The  opponents  of  the  Minimum  Wage 
urge  that  legislation  dealing  with  wages  is  an  invasion  of 
the  right  of  free  contract.  Now,  freedom  of  contract  pre- 
supposes the  equality  of  the  bargaining  power  of  the  con- 
tracting parties,  for  where  is  the  freedom  of  contract  when 
one  party  is  all  powerful  and  the  other  party  helpless?  Who 
will  say  freedom  of  contract  when  a  friendless,  destitute  girl, 
with  but  a  few  pennies  in  her  pocket,  applies  for  work  in  a 
large  factory.  Does  the  employer  need  this  one  small  addi- 
tion to  his  help  as  much  as  this  girl  needs  work?  No!  It  is 
ridiculous  to  talk  freedom  of  contract  for  our  unskilled 
workers  under  the  present  system.  The  need  of  the  work  is 
so  great  and  the  workers  so  numerous  that  employers  dictate 
their  own  terms.  What  we  of  the  Affirmative  are  contending 
for  is  not  legislation  which  will  destroy  freedom  of  contract, 
but  legislation  which  will  make  freedom  of  contract  an  actual- 
ity and  not  a  ghastly  mockery.  We  want  wage  bargains  to 
be  real  bargains,  based  on  a  reasonable  equality  of  bargain- 
ing power  and  not  the  necessities  and  ignorance  of  the 
weaker  party. 


AFFIRMATIVE  19 

The  fourth  reason  why  the  Minimum  Wage  will  benefit 
the  unprotected  worker  is  because,  under  the  Minimum  Wage 
efficiency  and  not  the  superior  bargaining  power  of  the  em- 
ployer will  determine  wages.  Opponents  of  the  Minimum 
Wage  urge  that  wages  should  be  based  on  efficiency  and  not 
on  the  cost  of  living.  We  of  the  Affirmative  agree  most 
heartily  with  them.  It  would  be  ridiculous  for  anyone  to 
expect  that  workers  would  be  paid  more  than  they  are  worth 
by  any  employer.  Our  contention  is  that  many  of  the  unpro- 
tected workers  to-day  are  not  paid  what  they  are  worth 
because  of  the  lack  of  real  freedom  of  contract  and  because 
of  the  superior  bargaining  power  of  the  employer.  Under 
the  Minimum  Wage  a  weeding-out  process,  based  on  the  real 
efficiency  of  the  workers,  would  result.  Those  people  so 
deficient  as  not  to  be  able  to  earn  enough  to  keep  body  and 
soul  together  would  be  placed  in  a  separate  class  and  scien- 
tifically studied,  as  I  have  previously  suggested,  while  all 
those  workers  who  are  worth  the  Minimum  Wage  would 
naturally  be  kept  by  the  employer.  Thus  we  see  the  wages 
of  the  unprotected  worker  would  be  based  on  efficiency 
under  the  Minimum  Wage,  while  now  they  are  based  entirely 
on  the  relative  bargaining  power  of  the  two  parties,  which  is 
all  in  favor  of  the  employer. 

If  then,  honorable  judges,  I  have  shown  you  that  the 
Minimum  Wage  will  (i)  prevent  the  exploitation  of  .the 
helpless  worker,  that  (2)  it  will  stimulate  endeavor  and 
increase  efficiency,  that  (3)  it  will  make  the  freedom  of  con- 
tract an  actuality,  and  th'at  (4)  under  the  Minimum  Wage 
efficiency,  not  the  superior  bargaining  power  of  the  employer, 
will  determine  the  wages  of  the  unprotected  worker,  then  I 
believe  you  will  agree  with  me  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will 
give  the  unprotected  worker  a  decent  living  and  a  fair 
opportunity. 

Now,  in  conclusion,  honorable  judges,  I  would  like  to 
briefly  summarize  the  arguments  of  the  Affirmative.  We 
urge  the  establishment  of  a  legal  Minimum  Wage  and  believe 
that  the  principle  of  fixing  a  Minimum  Wage  by  state  boards 
is  desirable  because,  as  we  are  all  well  aware,  present  indus- 
trial conditions  among  the  unskilled  workers  demand  relief, 
and   we   believe    these    conditions   can   best    be    met    by  the 


20  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

Minimum  Wage  for  four  fundamental  reasons:  (i)  The 
Minimum  Wage  is  the  most  adequate  remedy  for  these  con- 
ditions, since  it  strikes  at  the  root  of  the  evil,  whereas  the 
many  other  suggestions  do  not,  (2)  The  Minimum  Wage 
will  increase  the  efficiency  and  productivity  of  the  state's 
industry  by  doing  away  with  parasitic  and  subsidized  labor 
and  necessitating  a  selection  of  the  most  efficient.  (3)  The 
Minimum  Wage  will  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the 
state  because  it  will  be  the  best  means  of  insuring  industrial 
peace,  because  it  will  prevent  national  degradation  by  pro- 
tecting women  workers,  and  because  it  will  separate  the 
efficient  from  the  inefficient.  And  (4)  The  Minimum  Wage 
will  give  the  unprotected  worker  a  decent  living  and  a  fair 
opportunity  in  the  industrial  world,  because  it  will  prevent 
the  exploitation  of  the  helpless  worker,  because  it  will  stimu- 
late endeavor  and  increase  efficiency,  because  it  will  make 
the  freedom  of  contract  an  actuality,  and  because  under  the 
Minimum  Wage  efficiency  and  not  the  superior  bargaining 
power  of  the  employer  will  be  the  basis  of  wages. 


PART  II— NEGATIVE 


Resolved, 

That  the  policy  of  fixing  minimum  wage 
scales    by    state    boards    is    desirable. 


FIRST  NEGATIVE  SPEECH. 
Alvin  Wendt 

My  opponent  has  done  full  justice  to  the  deplorable  condi- 
tions existing  among  our  lower  classes  of  labor.  Now  we  of 
the  Negative  admit  that  certain  undesirable  conditions  exist 
among  the  lower  classes  of  labor  just  as  there  are  as  equally 
undesirable  conditions  among  other  classes  of  society.  If 
this  were  not  true  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  this  debate. 
However,  we  will  not  concede  that  they  are  as  alarming  at 
the  present  as  the  gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  would  have 
you  think.  For  in  the  last  two  or  three  generations  sanitary 
condition  laws  have  been  passed,  hours  have  been  shortened, 
child  labor  laws  passed,  wages  have  risen,  and  on  the  whole, 
there  never  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  civilization  when 
there  was  more  call  and  encouragement  for  the  man  or 
woman  who  wished  to  rise  in  the  world.  But  this  is  not  the 
issue  of  our  discussion.  We  are  discussing  whether  or  not 
the  policy  of  fixing  a  Minimum  Wage  by  state  boards  is  de- 
sirable and  in  order  that  it  be  desirable  the  Affirmative  must 
show  us  where  or  how  the  Minimum  Wage  will  alleviate 
these  undesirable  conditions  without  bringing  on  other  prob- 
lems which  are  equally  puzzling  to  solve.  The  theory  which 
advocates  of  the  Minimum  Wage  put  forth,  seems  beautiful 
enough.  Its  object  seems  quite  just  and  we  of  the  Negative 
are  entirely  in  sympathy  with  the  sweated  laborers.  But  when 
you  attempt  to  put  this  theory  into  practice  it  presents  some 
mighty  practical  difficulties  and  upon  this  basis,  honorable 
judges,  we  of  the  Negative  will  show  you  that  the  policy  is 


22  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

undesirable  because,  first,  it  is  entirely  impracticable,  second, 
it  has  an  unsound  basis  and  third,  it  will  only  make  bad  in- 
dustrial conditions  worse.  Our  social  evils  of  the  present 
are  not  new,  neither  is  the  idea  of  state  regulations  of  wages 
untried.  In  the  i6th  century  under  Edward  III  England,  by 
drastic  legislation,  passed  an  act  regulating  the  wages  of  the 
working  people  which  resulted  in  grinding  the  people  down 
to  a  form  of  slavery.  Then  a  fight  between  labor  and  capital 
ensued  for  a  century  or  two  when  in  the  beginning  of  the 
19th  they  entered  upon  a  system  of' wholesale  state  charity 
to  relieve  the  suffering.  The  English  poor  commission  re- 
port of  1834  showed  that  their  attempt  to  protect  the  lives 
and  liberty  of  their  people  was  the  burdening  of  the  state 
with  the  keeping  of  a  multitude  of  idlers  and  lowered  the 
wages  of  those  who  were  really  willing  to  work. 

The  Massachusetts  Minimum  Wage  Law  provides  for 
three  men  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  whose  duty  it 
is  to  inspect  the  various  industries  to  detect  instances  where 
less  than  a  living  wage  is  being  paid.  When  such  a  case  is 
found  they  choose  fifteen  men  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  living 
and  the  profit  of  the  employer  and  from  these  fix  a  Mini- 
mum Wage.  Now  here  we  find  a  gigantic  problem.  What  is 
the  American  cost  of  living?  There  are  in  every  industrial 
community  from  25  to  50  different  nationalities  and  races 
each  of  which  has  different  habits,  customs,  desires  and 
principles  of  economy.  Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb  of  Eng- 
land, two  of  the  foremost  advocates  of  the  Minimum  Wage, 
say  in  their  book  on  Industrial  Democracy:  "The  difficulty 
of  really  applying  the  Minimum  Wage  is  a  most  obvious 
draw-back  to  it."  They  say  further  that,  "the  indispensable 
minimum  conditions  prescribed  for  each  occupation  can 
not  practically  be  adapted  to  the  requirements  of  each  in- 
dividual, but  must  be  roughly  gauged  by  needs  of  the  nor- 
mal type.  But  a  more  serious  difficulty  is  our  lack  of  precise 
knowledge  as  to  what  are  the  conditions  of  healthy  life  and 
industrial  efficiency  and  while  the  amount  of  food  and 
clothing  might  be  ascertained  we  have  no  data  from  which 
to  estimate  the  cost  of  extra  food  and  clothing,  accidental 
sickness   or   disability." 


NEGATIVE  22 

Now  if  by  rough  estimating  a  Minimum  Wage  is  fixed  for 
an  industry  in  a  certain  community,  the  theory  is  shown 
inelastic  in  that  in  some  other  part  of  the  state  where  the 
cost  of  transportation  and  production  were  greater  or  where 
the  living  was  naturally  higher  the  law  would  work  a  hard- 
ship to  both  employer  and  laborer  in  the  same  industry. 
Then  if  we  grant  the  Commission  the  privilege  of  establishing 
a  Minimum  Wage  in  each  institution  if  necessary,  the  whole 
affair  presents  a  proposition  which  is  preposterous  to  pre- 
sume. Now  in  New  Zealand  where  the  average  number  of 
employers  in  an  industry  is  14,  this  is  comparatively  simple 
but  in  Massachusetts,  for  example,  with  its  7,685  institutions 
and  industries  the  clamoring  for  investigation  and  objections' 
to  decisions  would  be  inconceivable.  And  on  the  whole,  the 
end  would  not  justify  the  means  for  where  fifteen  men  are  to 
be  chosen  to  investigate  each  case  there  would  necessarily  be 
an  enormous  increase  in  state  officers  and  expenses.  As  in 
Australia  the  first  year  of  the  Minimum  Wage  brought  about 
an  increase  in  state  officers  of  250  per  cent  and  state  expenses 
were  trebled. 

Another  objection  to  the  policy  is  that  it  creates  unfair 
state  competition  and  interferes  with  interstate  commerce 
laws.  It  is  plain  to  be  seen  that  where  each  state  is  supreme, 
so  long  of  course  as  certain  broad  principles  of  Federal  Gov- 
ernment are  not  violated,  that  different  laws  concerning  the 
same  industry  will  be  passed  in  different  states,  and  our 
difficulty  would  be  even  greater  than  that  which  Australia 
has  met  with  in  making  their  Interstate  Commerce  laws  har- 
monize with  the  varying  laws  in  the  several  states.  It  is  also 
well  known  that  competition  is  very  intense  among  employ- 
ers in  the  same  industry  so  that  a  slight  raise  in  the  cost  of 
production  for  one  employer  often  times  makes  it  difficult  to 
meet  the  prices  set  by  his  competitors.  Now  you  can  easily 
see  the  unfairness  and  injustice  of  making  an  employer  pay  a 
Minimum  Wage  for  his  labor  and  at  the  same  time  forcing 
him  to  compete  with  the  employer  in  the  adjoining  state 
where  he  is  at  liberty  to  hire  his  labor  at  cheaper  rates. 
Furthermore,  what  possibility  is  there  that  a  state  like  Mass- 
achusetts   or    New    York    could    undertake    anything    like    a 


24  COMPULSORY   MINIMUM   WAGE 

Minimum  Wage  law  without  being  flooded  with  laborers 
fiom  states  having  no  Minimum  Wage?  A  state  Minimum 
Wage  law  would  immediately  require  a  virtual  prohibi- 
tion of  all  aliens  from  neighboring  states  or  abroad  because 
without  such  restriction  it  is  conceivable  that  any  single  state 
could  make  any  headway  against  the  inflow  of  labor.  Mr. 
Ledger,  a  Senator  from  Queensland,  described  the  outcome 
of  the  Minimum  Wage  when  he  says:  "Although  the  Mini- 
mum Wage  has  been  in  effect  in  Australia  for  eighteen  years 
it  is  still  in  the  experimental  state  and  the  results  obtained 
thus  far  have  been,  on  the  whole,  negative  results.  Each  year 
they  are  forced  to  pass  law  after  law  to  cover  up  faults  and 
defects  of  those  passed  the  previous  year,"  and  in  that  way 
are  attempting  to  protect  the  frail  idea  of  regulating  wages 
by  the  state  which  has  many  times  been  on  the  verge  of  being 
cast  aside  on  the  scrap  pile  of  legislative  lumber. 

After  all  the  difficulty  in  establishing  a  Minimum  Wage 
has  been  mentioned,  there  is  still  sufficient  reason  to  con- 
demn it  in  the  fact  that  it  can  be  and  is  being  easily  avoided. 
If  an  employer  is  forced  to  pay  a  man  or  woman  more  than 
he  feels  satisfied  they  are  earning  non-continuous  employ- 
ment will  many  times  be  the  result.  For  it  is  easy  for  the 
employer  to  insist  on  and  see  to  it,  that  the  laborer  works 
harder  and  then  lay  him  off  a  certain  amount  of  time  and 
while  getting  practically  the  same  amount  of  work  from  him 
he  is  paying  him  no  more  on  an  average  than  he  did  before. 
In  England  in  the  coal  mining  districts  in  many  cases  the 
mining  company  owns  the  mine,  the  houses  in  which  their 
workers  live  and  the  store  of  the  village.  The  miners  are  paid 
in  trading  checks  and  if  they  are  forced  to  pay  them  more 
wages  it  is  an  easy  matter  for  them  to  raise  either  the  rent, 
or  price  of  groceries  and  thus  get  back  the  increase  in  wages. 
In  New  Zealand  in  the  case  of  Chinese  many  are  found  work- 
ing apparently  for  the  Minimum  Wage  but  have  secret  agree- 
ments whereby  they  hand  back  a  part  of  it  to  the  employer 
or  lose  their  jobs.  Now  as  New  Zealand  has  met  with  this 
difficulty  with  practically  no  foreign  immigration,  imagine 
how  this  would  be  magnified  if  applied  in  our  country  with 
our  well  known  immigration  problem.     Furthermore,  the  252 


NEGATIVE  25 

cases  which  came  upon  the  court  of  Victoria  in  a  single  year 
for  the  violation  of  the  act  shows  that  so  long  as  the  human 
body  requires  sustenance,  laborers  will  attempt  to  supply  it 
and  if  they  are  incompetent  of  earning  enough  to  supply  all 
their  wants,  Minimum  Wage  or  no  Minimum  Wage,  they 
are  going  to  supply  as  much  of  it  as  they  can.  Their  help- 
lessness, lack  of  organization,  and  business  knowledge  will 
stand  in  the  way  of  their  getting  benefit  from  the  law  just  as 
it  has  hitherto  stood  in  the  way  of  their  helping  themselves 
and  we  could  hardly  expect  one  of  these  laborers  who  is  in- 
efficient to  secure  work  at  the  minimum  to  sacrifice  himself 
for  the  ultimate  good  of  the  race.  In  the  Victorian  report 
for  1908  on  page  28,  Inspector  Bishop  makes  a  statement  that 
if  conditions  happened  to  be  a  little  unfavorable  to  either 
employer  or  laborers,  the  tendency  was  to  refuse  to  abide  by 
the  decisions  of  the  commissions. 

What  more  is  necessary  to  condemn  a  proposition  than 
the  fact  that  it  is  too  impracticable  and  inelastic  to  be  applied 
to  various  conditions  and  that  it  can  be  obeyed  or  disobeyed 
at  will?  But  in  addition  to  these  objections  the  theory  has 
an  unsound  economic  basis.  Theorists  and  social  reformers 
who  are  for  the  most  part  responsible  for  the  Minimum  Wage 
proposition  while  seeking  a  remedy  for  the  conditions  ne- 
glect to  think  of  the  cause.  Adams  and  Sumner  in  their  book 
on  Labor  Problems,  page  150,  give  us  statistics  showing 
seventy-nine  per  cent  of  poverty  due  to  other  causes  than  low 
wage.  In  Liverpool,  in  a  certain  district,  the  longshoremen 
receive  an  average  wage  of  $4.00  per  week,  the  lowest  wage 
perhaps  in  the  world.  Yet  in  this  same  district,  the  report 
shows  a  yearly  expenditure  of  $7,000,000  for  liquor.  These 
enthusiasts  forget  these  things  and  also  forget  many  em- 
ployers and  capitalists  who  have  been  driven  to  the  wall  by 
bu'siness  failures.  They  picture  certain  employers  who  be- 
cause of  shrewd  business  management  are  living  amid  com- 
fort and  apparent  happiness  and  immediately  conclude  that 
he  is  reaping  exorbitafit  profits  from  his  laborers  and  demand 
a  raise  in  their  wages.  The  wages  which  an  employer  can 
pay  depend  on  the  cost  of  his  raw  material,  the  demand  and 
■  supply   of   his    finished   product,   the    demand    and    supply   of 


26  COMPULSORY   MINIMUM   WAGE 

labor  and  the  individual  efficiency  and  productive  ability  of 
the  man  in  question.  Of  course  in  most  cases  the  laborer 
can  obtain  a  high  enough  wage  to  defray  his  living  expenses 
but  if  in  the  employer's  estimation  the  man  is  incompetent  of 
earning  the  Minimum  Wage  the  laborer  has  no  legal  right  to 
demand  the  Minimum  Wages.  The  Minimum  Wage  law 
must  be  accompanied  by  a  minimum  efficiency  such  as  the 
teachers'  minimum  wage  law  in  Iowa  whereby  they  receive  a 
certain  amount  for  every  per  cent  on  their  certificate. 

Now  if  the  state  forces  an  employer  to  pay  the  Minimum 
Wage  regardless  of  the  efficiency  of  the  labor  it  is  an  obvious 
injustice  to  him  because  it  forces  him  to  run  a  charitable  in- 
stitution at  his  own  expense.  It  is  also  an  injustice  to  the 
more  competent  laborer  because  he  will  be  receiving  less  ac- 
cording to  his  efficiency  and  productive  ability  than  is  the  less 
competent  laborer.  There  are  two  disastrous  results  of  ap- 
plying such  a  law:  its  tendency  towards  reducing  wages  to  a 
dead  level  and  toward  checking  the  incentive  for  individual 
efforts.  When  the  cost  of  living  is  definitely  known  in  a 
community,  the  cry  for  more  wages  on  the  part  of  the  mod- 
erately well  paid  man  will  lose  a  great  deal  of  its  justice  if 
the  employer  happens  to  be  running  on  a  low  margin  and 
labor  is  plentiful,  it  is  a  logical  conclusion  that  the  employer 
will  at  his  first  opportunity  shave  the  wages  of  the  skilled 
employees.  Furthermore,  when  the  law  steps  in  and  prom- 
ises to  guarantee  every  laborer  a  living  wage  the  laborer  will 
depend  upon  the  law  instead  of  upon  his  ability  to  earn  the 
high  wage.  In  other  words  the  incentive  for  his  individual 
effort  will  be  checked.  To  substantiate  these  arguments,  I 
quote  from  Mr  Aves,  the  English  investigator  who  was  sent 
to  Australia  and  New  Zealand.  He  says:  "I  think  the  evi- 
dence is  conclusive  that  present  conditions  in  New  Zealand 
are  tending  towards  a  lower  efficiency  and  the  standstill  of 
industrial  progress,"  Mr.  Clarke,  the  American  investigator, 
says:  "The  minimum  set  for  skilled  workers  is  as  a  rule  the 
average  wage  paid  and  it  is  practically  the  unanimous  testi- 
mony of  the  employers  in  Australia  that  men  are  not  as  inter- 
ested in  their  work  under  the  Minimum  Wage  as  they  were 
before."     Thus  this  would  be  changed  into  an  age  of  ma- 


NEGATIVE  •  27 

terialism  instead  of  individual  possibilities  and  merits.  The 
prosperity  and  progress  of  a  nation  is  due  to  constant  in- 
centive toward  individual  enterprise,  untrammeled  ambition 
in  the  consciousness  of  the  call  for  advancement,  and  if  we 
wish  to  bring  the  tide  of  our  industrial  progress  to  a  stand- 
still, then  let  up  adopt  a  plan  which  tends  to  give  the  same 
financial  remuneration  and  recognition  to  the  common  multi- 
tude as  it  does  to  the  man  who  develops  individual  possi- 
bilities. 

When  a  laboring  man  agrees  to  accept  a  Minimum  Wage 
law,  he  surrenders  his  personal  liberty.  For  if  he  accepts 
their  protection  he  must  abide  by  their  decision.  The  labor 
unions  are  opposed  to  it  because  it  takes  from  them  the  right 
to  set  the  price  at  which  they  will  sell  their  labor  which  is 
the  very  principle  for  which  they  have  been  fighting  since 
their  existence.  The  protection  of  the  Minimum  Wage  is 
alluring  but  with  it  personal  liberty  is  sacrificed.  Mr.  Eraser, 
an  English  journalist  and  traveler,  says:  "The  complicated 
system  in  Australia  interferes  with  the  personal  liberty  and 
many  of  its  regulations  are  absurd,"  for  example  he  says  no 
groom  is  allowed  to  repair  a  piece  of  harness  however  slight 
the  damage.  It  must  be  sent  to  the  harness  repair  man.  A 
brick  mason  out  of  work  in  his  trade  would  not  seek  em- 
ployment in  any  other  trade  because  he  would  be  incompetent 
to  earn  the  Minimum  Wage  set  for  skilled  workmen  in  that 
trade  and  if  the  man  hired  him  according  to  his  ability  he 
would  lay  himself  liable  for  violation  of  the  Minimum  Wage 
law.  Men  not  trade  unionists  have  the  utmost  difficulty  in 
securing  work.  Employers  are  many  times  called  upon  to 
dismiss  good  men  who  do  not  belong  to  the  union,  simply 
because  the  Minimum  Wage  commission  happens  to  be  union 
by  majority.  Then  when  for  the  sake  of  peace  these  men 
agree  to  join  the  unions  they  are  many  times  told  that  the 
books  are  closed.  A  certain  man  in  Victoria  wanted  a  work- 
man. Two  applied.  The  man  hired  the  non-unionist  because 
he  deemed  him  the  more  efficient  man.  The  man  was  fined 
$10  and  costs  for  so  doing  and  was  told  by  the  Minimum 
Wage  board  that  it  was  their  board  and  not  the  employer 
which    decides    the    relative    competency    of    the    employees. 


28  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

The  consequence  of  such  legislation  is  to  create  unpleasant 
feelings  between  employer  and  employee  and  authorities  agree 
that  there  is  a  bitterness  of  vindictiveness  almost  a  savagery 
between  them  in  Australia  which  exceeds  similar  feelings  in 
any  other  country  in  the  world.  Honorable  judges,  it  was 
these  obviously  far-fetched  regulations  which  were  so  un- 
desirable in  the  reign  of  the  ancient  despots.  Our  constitu- 
tion is  founded  upon  the  principle  of  personal  liberty  to  each 
and  every  citizen.  Thus  for  the  protection  of  the  personal 
liberty  of  our  laborers  which  is  guaranteed  them  in  our  con- 
stitution regardless  of  other  reasons  we  feel  justified  in  fight- 
ing against  the  policy  of  fixing  minimum  wage  scales. 


SECOND  NEGATIVE  SPEECH 

Lyle  M.  Cass  at 

Besides  being  impracticable  and  based  upon  unsound  prin- 
ciples, the  establishment  of  a  legal  Minimum  Wage  would 
only  make  bad  industrial  conditions  worse.  In  the  first  place 
because  it  would  increase  the  number  of  unemployed.  Our 
honorable  opponents  have  advocated  the  "Minimum  Wage  as 
a  remedy  for  conditions  which  it  is  claimed  exist  among  un- 
protected labor.  They  have  certainly  done  full  justice  to  the 
scenes  and  conditions  which  they  believe  exist.  They  have 
been  pleading  for  this  interference  by  the  State  for  those 
laborers  who  do  not  receive  a  living  wage.  Now  the  class  of 
people  who  cannot  earn  a  living  wage  is  made  up  primarily 
of  the  slow,  the  old,  the  infirm,  and  the  inefificient  workers, 
and  the  glaring  inconsistency  of  the  Affirmative  argument  is 
that  in  pretending  to  help  this  class,  which  is  in  such  pitiable 
conditions,  they  would  throw  them  entirely  out  of  the  em- 
ployment which  they  now  hold. 

If  the  law  should  step  in  and  compel  an  employer  in  a  cer- 
tain industry  to  pay  a  Minimum  Wage  of  say  ten  dollars  per 
week,  what  would  be  done?  If  you  were  the  employer  you 
would  immediately  run  down  over  your  pay  roll  and  every 
employee  who  was  not  at  that  time  earning  a  wage  of  at  least 
ten  dollars,  working  on  the  basis  of  his  efficiency,  what  he  is 
worth  to  you,  would  immediately  lose  his  job.  A  person 
with  only  slight  business  ability  can  easily  see  that  the  la- 
borers who  were  receiving,  on  the  basis  of  their  efficiency, 
even  nine  dollars  and  one  half  per  week,  could  not  remain  in 
your  employ.  If  a  man  has  to  pay  not  less  than  ten  dollars  a 
week  to  each  laborer,  it  stands  to  reason  that  he  wants  only 
those  laborers  who  are  earning  at  least  that  amount.  It 
would  make  no  difference  how  much  you  pitied  those  people, 
business  is  business,  and  purely  business  principles  would 
compel  you  to  throw  entirely  out  of  your  establishment,  the 
old,  the  infirm,  the  slow  and  inefficient  workers,  whom  you 
had  hitherto  paid  on  the  basis  of  what  they  earned. 

But,  it  is  said  the  employer  can  raise  the  price  of  his  com- 
modity to   offset  this   increase   in   expenditure.     This   would 


30  COMPULSORY   MINIMUM   WAGE 

not  only  add  to  the  already  high  cost  of  living,  but  if  we  keep 
within  bounds  of  sound  reasoning  and  economic  law  we  know 
that  in  raising  the  price  of  any  commodity,  we  lower  the  de- 
mand and  fewer  laborers  are  necessary  to  produce  it.  The* 
result  in  this  case  would  be  that  a  large  per  cent  of  the 
laborers  would  lose  their  jobs. 

Or,  if  the  employer  could  not  possibly  pay  the  increased 
wage  and  do  business,  he  would  have  to  close  his  doors  and 
besides  hurting  the  industry  of  the  country  at  large,  he  is 
depriving  his  employees  of  their  means  of  subsistence.  Any 
way  you  approach  the  matter,  laborers  in  great  numbers  will 
be  thrown  out  of  employment.  In  the  district  of  Auckland, 
New  Zealand,  after  four  years  of  the  Minimum  Wage  opera- 
tion, twenty-five  hundred  fewer  people  were  engaged  in  the 
remaining  industries  while  one  hundred  and  eleven  industries 
went  entirely  out  of  business.  When  you  consider  that  the 
entire  working  population  of  Auckland  does  not  amount  to 
one-twentieth  the  laborers  of  a  state  like  Illinois  we  can  justly 
feel  alarmed  over  its  results  in  the  United  States. 

Dr.  Clark  reports  emphatically  that  the  Minimum  Wage 
law  in  both  New  Zealand  and  Australia  throws  the  slow 
worker  and  semi-incompetent  wage  earner  entirely  out  of 
employment.  This  may  not  be  a  matter  of  grave  importance 
in  a  country  like  Australia,  which  is  sparsely  settled  and 
where  the  people  are  not  herded  into  great  industrial  centers;, 
but  in  a  country  like  our  own  such  results  are  not  to  be  con- 
sidered lightly.  Mr.  Aves  of  the  British  Government  says, 
"The  report  bears  witness  that  an  improvement  in  one  direc- 
tion was  only  secured  by  increased  suffering  in  another." 

In  England  it  has  worked  out  that  a  great  per  cent  of  the 
less  efficient  coal-miners  have  been  driven  into  pauperism. 
But  this  is  not  the  only  danger.  Employers  in  New  Zealand 
and  Australia  admit  that  it  is  more  profitable  to  employ 
young  and  quick  men  and  dismiss  others  when  they  reach 
middle  age.  As  soon  as  girls  serve  their  terms  of  apprentice- 
ship they  are  turned  out  and  others  take  their  places,  so  that 
not  only  at  first  but  constantly  the  Minimum  Wage  adds  to 
the  ranks  of  the  unemployed.  Business  principles  are  not 
diflferent  in   different  countries.     In  the  United   States,   em- 


NEGATIVE  31 

ployers,  just  as  they  have  done  wherever  the  Minimum  Wage 
has  been  tried,  would  take  only  the  quickest  and  most  efficient 
workers  with  the  result  that  where  hundreds  are  thrown  out 
in  Australia,  thousands — yes,  tens  of  thousands — would  be 
thrown  out  of  employment  in  the  United  States. 

Not  only  will  the  old,  the  slow,  the  inefficient,  and  the  in- 
firm be  thrown  entirely  out  of  work  but  we  have  no  assurance 
that  the  laborers  retained  by  an  industry  will  have  continuous 
employment.  Why,  it  stands  to  reason  that  when  an  industry 
has  a  greater  expense  laid  upon  it  in  the  nature  of  increased 
wage,  that  it  will  seize  every  opportunity  to  economize  this 
expense  by  laying  off  their  einployees  at  every  chance.  You 
will  all  agree  with  me  that  $1.25  per  day  for  six  days  is  better 
than  $1.40  for  five  days  and  better  than  $1.75  per  day  for  four 
days.  Six  weeks  work  at  nine  dollars  per  week  is  better 
than  five  weeks  work  at  ten  dollars,  so  that  unless  we  have 
some  assurance  of  steady  work  for  the  laborer,  the  Minimum 
Wage  would  do  him  little  good.  His  aggregate  wages  for 
the  year  might  not  be  as  much  under  the  Minimum  Wage  as 
without  it. 

No,  our  honorable  opponents  have  slipped  over  this  prob- 
lem too  lightly.  They  have  merely  admitted  that  these  la- 
borers will  be  thrown  out  of  employment  but  they  have  form- 
ulated no  remedy  for  it. 

Since  the  Minimum  Wage  would  apply  especially  in  the 
lowest  industries,  these  jobless  would  have  no  trade  to  turn 
to  and  must  be  thrown  upon  the  public  for  support.  This  is 
no  solution  for  our  trouble  whatever.  We  only  slip  by  the 
exploited  labor  problem  to  one  equally  large — that  of  unem- 
ployment. The  United  States  has  now  one  of  the  greatest 
unemployment  problems  of  any  nation  in  the  world.  Unem- 
ployment is  already  a  national  menace  and  any  measure 
which  so  plainly  throws  more  of  this  class  upon  us  cannot 
receive  our  support.  Unemployment  has  always  caused, 
greater  suffering  in  the  United  States  than  low  wages.  This, 
is  the  class  which  has  filled  our  charitable  institutions  to  over- 
flowing and  in  our  cities  has  proven  to  be  always  a  source  of 
crime  and  outrage.  Only  lately  the  papers  from  our  great 
cities  have  been  clamoring  for  a  solution  for  the  unemployed 


Z2  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM    WAGE 

problem  within  their  borders.  The  Chicago  Record-Herald 
of  February  ist  reported  a  snow  storm  as  having  given  work 
to  10,000  jobless  in  that  city  alone.  The  same  paper  of  Feb- 
ruary I2th  states  that  there  are  350,000  jobless  men  and 
women  in  New  York  City  alone.  Troops  have  had  to  quell 
riots  started  by  these  people.  Charitable  institutions  are 
taxed  to  the  limit  of  their  capacity  and  free  lodging  and  eat- 
ing houses  have  been  established.  Other  great  cities  have  a 
problem  similar  in  size  to  deal  with  and  yet  we  listen  to 
advocates  of  a  measure  which  even  its  heartiest  supporters 
claim  will  increase  this  number.  Father  Ryan,  one  of  its 
strongest  advocates,  says  that  this  is  the  most  serious  objec- 
tion to  the  legal  Minimum  Wage. 

The  advocates  of  the  measure  say  lightly,  the  state  can 
take  care  of  these  people.  If  the  states  are  compelled  to 
furnish  employment  for  these  unfortunates  not  only  are  we 
becoming  involved  in  socialistic  legislation  with  all  its  sub- 
sequent difficulties  but  we  are  harming  the  individual  as  well. 
This  ought  to  be  the  last  word  in  a  problem  of  this  kind. 
Minimum  Wage  legislation  is  proposed  to  help  the  lower 
class  of  laborers.  What  effect  will  it  have  upon  them?  Will 
those  who  are  thrown  out  of  employment  be  satisfied  or  will 
they  feel  that  they  are  being  sacrificed  to  the  susceptibilities 
of  officious  sentimentalists?  We,  of  the  Negative,  believe 
that  the  laborer's  best  self  will  be  injured.  If  made  to  work 
for  the  state  he  lives  the  life  of  a  pauper  with  no  ambition 
for  anything  better  than  to  exist.  His  efficiency  will  be 
lowered.  Even  under  our  present  system  everyone  loafs 
who  is  doing  manual  labor  for  the  state  or  government, 
"^^oafing  becomes  a  science  in  the  erection  of  Government 
buildings  and  the  man  who  doesn't  rest  his  team  half  the 
time  when  even  working  out  his  county  road  tax  is  consid- 
ered a  fool.  Deplore  these  conditions  as  we  may,  they  are 
facts  and  when  you  deprive  the  laborer  of  all  self-respect  his 
interest  in  the  efficiency  of  his  work  is  lost.  Dr.  Clark  says 
of  New  Zealand,  "It  is  rather  significant  in  a  country  where 
the  Government  is  the  largest  single  employer  of  labor,  that 
the  go  easy  or  intentional  soldiering  on  the  job  is  almost 
universally  known  both  among  employers  and  employees." 


NEGATIVE  33 

Professor  Fitch  writing  in  the  Des  Moines  Capital  only  a 
few  days  ago  after  a  visit  to  Australia  says,  "The  principle 
defect  which  I  found  in  the  socialistic  system  is  that  under 
municipal  or  government  ownership,  workmen  there  do  in- 
ferior work  and  less  of  it." 

Honorable  judges,  by  establishing  the  legal  Minimum 
Wage  we  only  make  bad  industrial  conditions  worse  by  in- 
creasing the  number  of  unemployed,  plunging  the  state  into 
socialistic  and  paternalistic  measures  of  relief  for  these  people 
and  by  injuring  the  laborer,  himself,  through  the  loss  of  his 
self  respect. 

The  Minimum  Wage  would  only  make  bad  industrial  con- 
ditions worse,  in  the  second  place,  because  it  would  intimidate 
capital.  Now,  anything  that  the  state  does  to  drive  away 
capital  or  to  keep  capital  from  coming  into  the  state,  deprives 
laborers  of  that  state,  of  work  and  of  course,  clogs  the  move- 
ment of  our  whole  industrial  system.  On  the  very  face  of  it, 
it  does  not  stand  to  reason  that  a  man  will  invest  his  money 
in  a  concern  into  which  the  state  regulation  of  wages  has 
been  introduced  nearly  as  quickly  as  into  one  into  which  it 
has  not  been  introduced.  A  self-respecting,  independent  busi- 
ness man  recoils  at  the  thought  of  the  state  dictating  the 
prices  whifch  he  shall  pay  for  his  employees.  Human  nature 
tells  us  that  money  would  be  withdrawn  from  these  industries 
and  more  of  the  lower  class  of  laborers  would  be  out  of  a  job. 

President  Hadley,  of  Yale,  in  his  book  on  "Economics," 
page  366,  voices  the  sentiment  of  economists  when  he  says 
that  the  closeness  of  the  competition  of  capital  and  the  nar- 
rowness of  the  margin  of  profit  is  too  often  underrated.  We 
do  not  realize  how  closely  actual  piece  wages  have  been 
forced  to  the  limit,  which  prices  will  allow. 

This  is  especially  true  of  the  young  industries.  We  all 
know  of  new  industries  starting  up  at  the  present  time  all 
over  the  coui^try  which  are  paying  all  they  possibly  can  pay 
for  laborers.  They  have  already  by  a  natural  course  of 
events  raised  wages,  for  workmen  had  to  be  induced  to 
leave  their  other  work  and  join  the  new  industry.  If  forced 
by  the  state  to  pay  more  than  this  wage,  the  new  company 
must  go  out  of  business  and  the  old,  strong,  well-established 


34  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

concerns  reap  the  benefit.  Herein  lies  the  great  danger  to 
the  country's  industries  where  the  Minimum  Wage  is  used 
extensively.  It  discourages  new  industries,  discourages  com- 
petition and  consequently  promotes  monopoly. 

Dr.  Clark  in  his  report  says,  "While  some  manufacturers 
speak  well  of  the  system  the  business  world  generally  is 
opposed  to  it.  There  is  a  lack  of  enterprise  in  New  Zealand 
as  compared  with  the  United  States." 

Professor  Le  Rossignol,  of  the  University  of  Colorado, 
after  making  extended  investigation  in  Australia  says,  "In- 
dustrial enterprise  has  been  checked  to  a  considerable  extent 
by  the  labor  laws.  But  few  industries  are  started  and  new 
investors  are  slow  to  put  their  money  into  industries  in  which 
the  chief  item  of  expenditure  is  labor." 

In  Australia  after  experimenting  with  the  Minimum  Wage 
under  almost  ideal  conditions  for  its  successful  working  out, 
we  find  not  only  hatred  between  laborers  and  employers  such 
as  we  do  not  know  even  in  this  country,  but,  owing  to  the 
pressure  of  the  laborers  on  the  wage  boards,  capitalists  are 
slow  to  put  their  money  forward  and  the  industry  of  the 
country  suffers. 

Another  aspect  of  the  whole  matter  remains  for  us.  A 
state  which  has  cried  away  with  the  parasitic  industries  and 
goods  made  under  sweated  conditions,  cannot  consistently  al- 
low the  sale  of  articles  made  under  sweated  conditions  in 
that  state  no  matter  where  they  came  from.  It  would  be 
about  as  foolish  -as  for  Iowa  to  legislate  against  the  manu- 
facture of  liquor  within  the  state  and  then  allow  it  to  be 
shipped  in  and  sold  in  every  town  and  city  in  the  state.  Thus 
Rhode  Island,  if  she  desires  to  carry  out  the  Minimum  Wage 
consistently  would  have  to  bottle  herself  up  from  all  goods 
made  under  sweated  conditions  in  Massachusetts,  Pennsyl- 
vania, New  York,  etc.  All  this  would  require 'investigation, 
for  obviously  a  trade  which  is  sweated  in  one  state  may  not 
be  considered  so  in  another.  Going  farther,  the  separate 
states  would  have  to  refuse  goods  made  in  foreign  countries 
and  here  the  case  becomes  ridiculous  for  under  our  standards 


NEGATIVE  35 

almost  all  goods  made  in  foreign  countries  are  made  under 
sweated  conditions.  The  result  would  be  as  disastrous  to  in- 
dustry as  unnecessary. 

Honorable  judges,  we  make  bad  industrial  conditions 
worse  in  the  second  place,  by  intimidating  capital  not  only 
by  working  hardship  to  private  capital  but  by  injuring  state 
and  national  industry  as  well. 

By  establishing  the  legal  Minimum  Wage  we  only  make 
bad  industrial  conditions  worse,  in  the  third  place,  by  stim- 
ulating undesirable  immigration.  I  do  not  need  to  tell  you 
that  the  United  States  fias  the  greatest  immigration  problem 
of  any  nation.  In  the  last  ten  years,  according  to  the  World's 
Almanac,  over  ten  million  people  have  left  their  home  for  the 
shores  of  our  country.  These  are  the  people  who  have 
crowded  into  our  cities  making  slum  and  sweatshop  condi- 
tions. This  is  the  class  that  the  Minimum  Wage  would  help, 
a  class  composed  in  a  large  measure  of  foreigners.  If  these 
people  were  sturdy  settlers,  of  good  descent,  as  our  earlier 
immigration,  this  inducement  to  bring  them  over  here  might 
be  justified,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  we.  all  know  that  we  are 
receiving  at  the  present  time  the  scum  and  dregs  of  society. 
They  have  no  desire  to  accept  the  American  standard  of  liv- 
ing or  even  to  become  permanent  residents.  They  are  per- 
fectly satisfied  with  sweatshop  conditions  and  seem  to  find 
it  so  remunerative  that  they  can  always  send  for  their  friends 
and  relatives.  In  the  Massachusetts  commission  report  for 
the  Minimum  Wage  we  find  that  from  seventeen  to  forty 
per  cent  of  the  workers  investigated. were  of  foreign  birth, 
while  thirty  to  fifty  per  cent  were  native  born  of  foreign 
parentage.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  in  New  York,  one  half  the 
laborers  affected  by  the  Minimum  Wage  would  be  foreigners, 
^hat  would  be  the  result?  Let  it  be  known  that  our  states 
guarantee  a  wage  surprisingly  large  in  their  eyes  for  the 
lowest  grades  of  labor  and  the  country  would  be  besieged 
with  foreigners  clamoring  for  admission.  Steamship  com- 
panies would  proclaim  far  and  wide  that  no  one  could  get 
less  than  a  living  wage  over  here  and  the  result  of  such  bait 
would  be  hard  to  estimate. 


36  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

To  be  sure  our  honorable  opponents  have  said  that  there 
are  only  a  limited  number  of  jobs,  but  this  only  complicates 
our  problem.  We  are  offering  inducement  to  a  lot  of  people 
to  be  fed  ultimately  by  the  state,  to  increase  the  number  of 
unemployed,  and  present  aggravating  problems  to  our  already 
overcrowded  city  life.  It  is  again  argued  that  an  employer 
who  cannot  pay  less  than  a  certain  wage  will  preferably  give 
his  work  to  the  American  laborer.  This  does  not  relieve  the 
situation  either,  for  if  we  lure  these  foreigners  over  here 
and  then  take  their  work  from  them,  they  must  be  cared  for 
in  some  other  way. 

Thus  we  make  bad  industrial  conditions  worse,  in  the 
third  place,  by  attracting  a  low  class  of  immigration  to  be 
furnished  employment  or  to  be  cared  for  by  the  state. 

The  Negative  has  shown  you,  honorable  judges,  that  the 
policy  of  fixing  a  Minimum  Wage  by  state  governments  is 
not  desirable,  first,  because  it  is  impracticable.  My  colleague 
has  shown  you  that  it  is  impracticable,  first,  because  it  is 
too  inelastic  to  fit  various  situations;  second,  because  it  can- 
not be  adequately  investigated;  third,  because  it  will  create 
unfair  state  competition;  fourth,  because  it  can  be  easily 
evaded.  It  is  further  not  desirable  in  the  second  place,  be- 
cause it  is  based  upon  unsound  principles^  first,  because  pov- 
erty is  not  due  in  the  majority  of  cases  to  low  wages;  second, 
because  wages  should  be  based  upon  business  principles  and 
efficiency  and  not  upon  sentiment;  third,  because  it  will  tend 
to  lessen  the  laborer's  individual  effort  to  increase  his  effi- 
ciency; and  fourth,  because  it  would  interfere  with  the  right 
of  contract  or  personal  liberty  of  the  laborer.  Furthermore, 
the  legal  Minimum  Wage  is  not  desirable  in  the  third  place, 
because  it  would  only  make  bad  industrial  conditions  worse: 
first,  by  increasing  the  number  of  unemployed,  plunging  the 
state  into  socialistic  and  paternalistic  measures  of  relief  for 
these  people  and  injuring  the  laborer  himself  through  the 
loss  of  his  self  respect;  second,  by  intimidating  capital,  not 
only  in  working  hardship  on  private  capital  but  by  harming 
the  industry  of  the  state  and  nation  as  well;  and  third,  by 
stimulating  an  undesirable  class  of  immigration  who  must 
be  furnished  employment  or  be  cared  for  by  the  state. 


PART  III— REBUTTAL 

Resolved, 

Thg,t  the  policy  of  fixing  minimum  wage 
scales    by    state    boards    is    desirable. 

FIRST  AFFIRMATIVE  REBUTTAL 

Lester  F.  Ream 

In  my  constructive  speech  I  mentioned  the  fact  that  my 
opponents  would  undoubtedly  heap  up  an  innumerable  mass 
of  minor  details,  in  the  hope  that  some  of  these  minor  points 
would  be  defective  and  through  these  they  would  be  enabled 
to  attack  the  whole  great  principle  involved  in  the  Minimum 
Wage.  This  very  thing  they  have  done.  They  have  spent 
most  of  their  time  in  presenting  frivolous  objections.  Many 
of  these  objections  have  been  secondary  and  do  not  bear  di-" 
rectly  on  the  question  under  discussion.  However,  admitting 
that  some  of  these  minor  points  should  be  recognized,  we 
the  Affirmative,  cannot  help  but  believe  that  they  would  be 
corrected  after  a  short  time  in  practice.  Judging  from  past 
experiences,  we  are  at  once  forced  to  form  the  conclusion 
that  any  law  when  first  enacted  is  weak  in  places  and  can 
only  be  remedied  by  putting  the  law  into  operation. 

In  the  course  of  my  rebuttal  it  shall  be  my  purpose  to  re- 
fute those  objections  given  by  the  Negative  which  seem  to 
bear  directly  on  the  question.  Many  of  the  objections  pre- 
sented are  shallow  in  argument,  and  as  I  do  not  consider 
them  worthy  of  consideration  I  will  pass  over  them  without 
mention.  The  present  conditions  of  our  unprotected  and  ex- 
ploited labor  as  pictured  by  the  Affirmative  were  admitted 
by  the  Negative  to  be  true.  They  admitted  these  conditions 
to  be  true,  not  because  they  wanted  to  but  because  they  had 
to.  And  to  evade  the  weight  of  the  argument  given  to  the 
Affirmative  by  making  such  a  concession,   they  charged  us 


38       ,  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

with  working  on  human  sympathies.  Honorable  judges,  in 
admitting  these  conditions  to  be  true  the  Negative  conceded 
that  a  change  is  imperative.  But  they  have  failed  to  suggest 
any  other  remedy  for  the  evils  caused  by  the  low  wage  and 
at  the  same  time  they  have  utterly  failed  to  show  that  the 
principle  of  the  Minimum  Wage  is  impracticable. 

Our  opponents  charged  us  with  being  inconsistent  when 
we  compared  Minimum  Wage  legislation  in  Australia  with 
Minimum  Wage  legislation  in  our  own  states.  They  based 
this  contention  on  the  ground  that  Australia  was  a  larger 
country  than  our  own  with  a  much  less  population  and  fewer 
industries.  This  argument  becomes  less  imposing  when  we 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Australasian  territory  in 
which  it  has  been  successful,  while  larger,  has  a  greater  pop- 
ulation, has  more  industries  and  employs  more  workers  than 
any  one  of  our  own  states.  Honorable  judges,  you  cannot 
get  away  from  the  hard  cold  fact  that  Minimum  Wage  legis- 
lation has  been  a  potent  force  in  alleviating  the  industrial 
conditions  in  Australia.  ^  The  employers  themselves  in 
Australia  recognize  the  advantage  of  such  an  act.  Victor  S. 
'Clark  in  his  report  on  the  Minimum  Wage  in  Victoria  says: 
"The  better  class  of  employers  rather  court  some  provision 
that  frees  them  from  competition  of  the  less  scrupulous." 
The  personal  investigations  of  Ernest  Aves,  the  British  com- 
missioner, show  the  following  important  facts:  In  answer 
to  the  questions  sent  to  the  employers,  "Is  legal  adjustment 
of  wages  advantageous  to  employers?"  8i  per  cent  answered 
yes.  To  the  question,  "Is  legal  adjustment  of  wages  ad- 
vantageous to  your  trade?"  79  per  cent  answered  yes.  To 
the  question,  "Is  legal  adjustment  of  wages  advantageous  to 
the  community?"  78  per  cent  answered  yes.  Honorable 
judges  what  better  evidence  could  you  ask  that  this  legisla- 
tion will  benefit  the  employer  than  these  favorable  statements 
from  the  employers  themselves.  In  the  next  place  we  must 
admit  that  any  law  is  good  which  has  been  in  operation  for 
18  years  and  during  that  time  received  the  approval  of  the 
entire  public.  Such  is  the  history  of  Minimum  Wage  legisla- 
tion in  Australia. 

My   honorable   opponents   have   dared   to   claim   that   the 


REBUTTAL  39 

minimum  would  become  the  maximum.  This  would  be  a 
serious  objection  if  it  were  true.  But  it  lacks  even  the 
shadow  of  truth.  There  is  nothing  in  our  law  to  keep  em- 
ployers from  paying  as  much  as  they  please,  or  the  laborers 
from  getting  as  much  as  they  can.  Statistics  given  out  by  Ely 
and  Commons  of  Wisconsin  give  the  conclusive  statement 
that  in  New  Zealand  and  Australia  over  60  per  cent  of  the 
laborers  receive  more  than  the  Minimum  Wage.  Instead  of 
the  minimum  becoming  the  maximum  the  law  will  tend  to 
separate  the  efficient  from  the  inefficient.  And  when  this 
separation  is  made  the  workers  are  going  to  receive  just 
what  they  earn.  We  can  see  how  Minimum  Wage  if  it  were 
high  would  tend  to  a  certain  extent  to  become  the  maximum. 
But  the  Minimum  Wage  which  we  suggest  will  be  so  low  that 
it  will  not  affect  the  efficient  workman,  because  we  will  apply 
it  only  to  sweated  labor  and  this  labor  consists  mostly  of 
women  and  children. 

The  Negative  contend  that  Minimum  Wage  legislation 
will  create  an  unfair  state  competition.  Instead  of  interstate 
competition  killing  trade  under  the  Minimum  Wage  it  will 
stimulate  it.  The  existence  of  a  legal  Minimum  Wage  will 
tend  steadily  to  drive  business  into  those  establishments 
which  are  most  favorably  situated,  best  equipped,  and  man- 
aged with  the  greatest  ability  and  to  eliminate  the  incompe- 
tent and  old  fashioned  employer.  Driving  industries  into 
those  sections  best  situated  will  increase  the  efficiency  of  the 
industry.  In  the  next  place  one  state  is  not  going  to  do  any- 
thing that  will  be  injurious  to  another.  The  Wage  Boards  in 
determining  the  Minimum  Wage  have  taken  into  considera- 
tion interstate  competition.  In  many  instances  the  Boards 
would  have  liked  to  make  the  wage  lower  or  higher  but  they 
/ealized  the  importance  of  interstate  competition  and  acted 
accordingly. 

The  gentlemen  of  the  opposition  claim  that  the  adoption 
of  the  Minimum  Wage  will  mean  an  enormous  increase  in 
state  officers  and  expenses.  They  have  cited  Australia  as 
an  example  and  the  figures  are  probably  true.  When  we  con- 
sider the  great  good  that  Minimum  Wage  legislation  has 
done  for  the  workers  of  Australia  we  are  at  once  convinced 


40  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM    WAGE 

that  the  extra  expense  incurred  in  enforcing  the  law  has 
not  been  spent  in  vain.  If  Minimum  Wage  legislation 
will  better  the  conditions  of  our  exploited  and  unprotected 
labor,  increase  human  happiness  and  guarantee  every  person 
who  is  capable  of  earning  a  living  the  necessaries  of  life,  then 
the  extra  economic  expense  is  not  worthy  of  consideration. 

Our  opponents  attempted  to  overthrow  the  whole  prin- 
ciple of  the  Minimum  Wage  by  quoting  from  Adams  and 
Sumner's  book  on  "Labor  Problems."  They  claim  that  page 
150  of  this  book  gives  statistics  showing  that  seventy-nine 
per  cent  of  all  poverty  is  due  to  other  causes  than  low  wage. 
Well  enough,  we  accept  these  statistics,  but  for  a  moment 
let  us  go  down  below  the  surface  and  see  what  these  other 
causes  are  and  what  was  instrumental  in  bringing  them  about. 
When  we  analyze  the  situation  we  find  that  much  poverty  is 
due  to  drink,  vice  and  sickness.  Now  the  question  resolves 
itself  down  to  this  point.  What  prompts  men  to  lead  a  life  of 
vice  and  drunkeness?  It  is  their  inability  to  earn  a  wage 
sufficient  to  provide  for  themselves  and  families  the  neces- 
saries of  life.  What  is  it  that  causes  the  large  per  cent  of  dis- 
ease and  sickness?  It  is  poor  sanitary  conditions,  and  before 
these  conditions  can  be  bettered  the  workers  must  be  paid 
a  living  wage.  Thus  we  see  that  low  wages  are  indirectly  the 
cause  of  all  poverty.  Honorable  judges,  an  argument  of 
this  kind  sounds  very  well  so  long  as  we  do  not  read  between 
the  lines,  but  just  apply  a  little  common-sense  judgment  to 
your  reasoning  and  the  logic  of  such  a  statement  fades  away 
like  dew  before  the  morning  sun. 

The  Negative  contend  that  Minimum  Wage  legislation 
will  induce  a  great  multitude  of  foreign  labor  to  flock  to  this 
country.  We  the  Affirmative  are  glad  that  they  have  brought 
this  argument  up,  because  it  enables  us  to  greatly  strengthen 
the  Affirmative  side  of  the  question.  Immigration  instead  of 
weakening  the  validity  of  Minimum  Wage  adds  to  its  general 
effectiveness.  Our  opponents  argue  that  through  the  pub- 
licity of  steamship  lines  thousands  of  inefficient  and  unskilled 
workers  will  be  induced  to  come  over  to  this  country.  They 
claim  that  these  steamship  companies  will  misrepresent  the 
real  facts  in  the  case  by  telling  the  foreign  workers  that  in 


REBUTTAL  41 

this  country  they  will  be  guaranteed  a  living  wage  regardless 
of  their  efficiency.  Now,  in  the  first  place  the  problem  of 
immigration  at  the  present  time  is  as  great  a  question  as  the 
one  under  discussion.  If  the  adoption  of  Minimum  Wage 
legislation  will  stir  the  national  government  to  action  and 
force  it  to  restrict  immigration  in  some  way  or  other,  I  be- 
lieve we  will  all  agree  that  it  is  a  good  thing  and  on  this  evi- 
dence alone  should  be  enacted.  At  the  present  time  steps 
are  being  taken  to  restrict  immigration  by  imposing  on  all 
foreigners  a  literacy  test.  If  the  literacy  test  should  become 
a  law  the  whole  problem  of  immigration  so  far  as  Minimum 
Wage  legislation  is  concerned  would  be  settled.  However,  if 
no  attempt  is  made  to  restrict  immigration  it  would  not  be 
long  until  the  people  of  foreign  countries  would  learn  that 
they  must  possess  a  certain  amount  of  efficiency  before  they 
would  be  given  employment.  Under  the  Minimum  Wage  an 
employer  is  not  going  to  employ  a  person  who  cannot  earn 
this  wage,  and  as  most  of  the  foreign  labor  is  unskilled  they 
would  be  forced  to  increase  their  efficiency  or  return  to  their 
native  land.  Thus  we  see  that  Minimum  Wage  legislation 
will  compel  foreigners  to  come  up  to  a  certain  standard  of 
efficiency,  and  they  will  soon  learn  that  if  they  cannot  come 
up  to  this  standard  it  will  be  better  for  them  to  stay  at  home. 
The  argument  that  the  Negative  put  forth  in  regard  to  the 
inelasticity  of  the  law  is  absolutely  absurd.  The  Wage 
Boards  under  this  law  will  have  power  to  fix  a  wage  that  can 
be  changed  to  meet  conditions;  not  one  that  will  forever  re- 
main the  same.  When  prices  rise  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the 
Wage  Boards  to  see  that  wages  are  changed  to  meet  condi- 
tions. In  every  instance  where  the  Minimum  Wage  has  been 
adopted,  the  Wage  Boards  have  been  given  the  power  to  fix 
different  rates  of  wages  for  different  sections  of  the  state  if 
the  cost  of  living  demanded  it  and  to  make  different  rates  of 
wages  for  different  classes  and  grades  of  labor.  Does  a  law 
of  this  kind  appear  to  be  inelastic?  Why  no,  it  is  folly  ta 
presume  such  a  preposterous  statement.  In  the  next  place 
they  have  charged  us  with  not  outlining  a  practicable  and 
feasible  plan.  We  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  outline  a  plan  which  will  not  admit  of 


42  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

improvement.  A  perfect  plan  can  only  be  worked  out  in 
time.  However  in  my  constructive  speech  I  outlined  a  plan 
similar  to  those  in  the  Australasian  colonies  and  our  own 
states,  these  plans  so  far  have  been  successful,  therefore  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe  that  such  a  plan  is  both  practi- 
cable and  sound.  Furthermore,  the  Negative  have  failed  to 
pick  any  flaws  in  our  plan  and  to  evade  its  stableness  they 
charge  us  with  presenting  no  plan  at  all. 

They  claim  that  the  law  is  impracticable  because  it  will 
not  guarantee  continuous  employment.  Here  again  the 
gentlemen  of  the  opposition  are  drawing  on  their  imagination. 
At  no  time  during  the  debate  have  we  claimed  that  the  law 
will  create  work,  but  we  have  contended  that  it  will  give 
employment  to  every  person  willing  to  work,  so  long  as 
there  is  work  and  the  labor  of  said  person  is  worth  the  wage. 
Thus  it  is  plain  to  be  seen  that  an  employer  is  no  more  apt 
to  lay  a  laborer  off  under  the  Minimum  Wage  than  he  is 
under  our  present  system.  Honorable  judges  I  believe  that  I 
have  successfully  met  the  most  weighty  objections  of  the 
Negative. 

All  through  the  debate  the  gentlemen  of  the  opposition 
have  misrepresented  the  real  facts  in  the  case.  They  have 
been  inconsistent  time  and  time  again  during  the  discussion 
by  evading  arguments  they  could  not  meet.  And  to  offset 
this  apparent  weakness  they  have  piled  up  a  mass  of  minor 
objections,  some  of  which  have  no  bearing  on  the  question 
whatever.  Now  honorable  judges  we  the  Affirmative  so  far 
in  the  debate  have  shown  the  principle  of  Minimum  Wage 
legislation  to  be  good. 


SECOND   AFFIRMATIVE    REBUTTAL 

Bruce  F.  Gates 

The  gentlemen  of  the  Negative  have  attempted  to  make 
many  of  our  arguments  seem  ridiculous,  not  by  meeting  them 
squarely,  but  by  taking  much  for  granted  and  then  forcing 
a  conclusion,  based  on  these  suppositions.  For  instance, 
they  argue  at  length  that  it  would  be  no  better  to  be  em- 
ployed part  time  on  high  wages  than  it  would  to  be  employed 
all  the  time  on  medium  wages — true,  but  did  they  prove  ihat 
Under  the  Minimum  Wage  people  would  be  employed  part 
time?  There's  the  rub — they  merely  supposed  it — said  it  was 
common  sense  to  suppose  it.  Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I 
appeal  to  you,  if  under  the  Minimum  Wage  every  man  must 
produce  all  that  he  is  paid,  as  both  my  colleague  and  my 
opponents  have  stated;  in  other  words,  if  the  empi03''er  is 
going  to  employ  just  those  people  whom  it  will  be  profitable 
for  him  to  employ,  why  in  the  name  of  common  sense  will 
he  lay  them  off  part  of  the  time? 

They  also  told  you  at  length  and  on  many  occasions  that 
the  army  of  unemployed  would  be  greatly  increased.  Hon- 
orable judges,  the  last  thing  that  we  will  contend  for  the 
Minimum  Wage  is  that  it  would  create  work  for  people,  but 
we  do  contend  that  as  long  as  work  lasts  every  worker 
should  get  enough  to  keep  body  and  soul  together,  and  if  he 
is  not  capable  of  producing  enough  to  warrant  such  a  wage 
he  must  be  so  defective  that  it  is  both  harmful  to  him  and 
to  society  to  keep  him  housed  up  in  a  factory.  We  believe 
that  there  is  enough  work  for  at  least  most  of  our  laborers, 
and  that  the  employers  can  afiford  to  pay  them  a  living  wage 
if  they  will  not  be  so  greedy  for  immense  profits,  but  even 
granting  my  opponents'  supposition  that  there  is  not  enough 
work  tO'go  around,  is  that  any  reason  why  we  should  force 
a  large  number  of  people  to  grind  out  their  very  lives  for 
piteously  small  wages  in  order  that  many  more  such  people 
should  receive  that  same  small  wage  and  live  in  that  same 
squalid  condition? 

The  gentlemen  would  scare  you  by  telling  you  that  we 
are  advocating  a  socialistic  and  paternalistic  system.  This 
is  entirely  imaginary  on  their  part.     All  we  have  advocated 


44  COAIPULSORY    m!NIMUM   WAGE 

is  the  proper  protection  of  the  unprotected  laborers  and  the 
care  of  the  defective  laborers  by  the  state.  If  to  protect  and 
care  for  the  needy  and  unprotected  laborer  is  socialism,  then 
let  the  day  of  socialism  hasten. 

It  is  also  suggested  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  greatly 
intimidate  capital  and  discourage  new  industries.  This  state- 
ment is  so  flimsy  that  I  cannot  waste  much  time  on  it.  In 
the  first  place,  honorable  judges,  you  know  as  well  as  I  do 
that  it  is  not  in  small  industries  where  our  helpless  laborers 
are  ground  into  dollars  by  greedy  employers  half  so  much  as 
it  is  in  the  big  industries,  but  laying  that  aside,  if  there  is  any 
industry  which  must  depend  on  sapping  the  life  blood  of 
laborers  for  its  support,  then  I  say  it  is  a  blessing  to  the 
community  if  that  industry  is  discouraged. 

The  gentlemen  also  suggest  that  we  argue  against  our- 
selves when  we  say  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  insure 
industrial  peace  when  it  is  meant  to  benefit  the  unprotected 
worker,  because,  they  say,  the  unprotected  worker  cannot 
strike.  To  say  the  least  they  have  a  narrow  view  of  indus- 
trial peace.  Is  the  strike  the  only  way  that  industrial  dis- 
satisfaction is  manifested?  Cannot  the  unprotected  worker 
be  soured  on  his  work  and  on  the  world,  can't  he  be  a  grum- 
bler and  constantly  stirring  up  strife  and  trouble? 
'  It  is  also  suggested  that  it  is  hard  to  see  how  a  higher 
wage  will  keep  women  out  of  the  factory.  It  appears  to  our 
opponents  that  higher  wages  will  lure  the  women  on.  They 
do  not  understand  a  mother's  nature.  A  mother  does  not 
go  into  the  factory  to  earn  a  high  wage.  She  goes  into  the 
factory  to  supplement  her  husband's  wage.  Now,  if  that 
husband  secured  a  higher  wage  she  would  not  need  to  sup- 
plement it  and  surely  women  are  not  so  constituted  that  they 
would  rather  work  in  a  factory  than  in  the  home  with  their 
children  if  the  husband  earned  enough  without  their  help. 

The  gentleman  who  just  left  the  floor  says  it  is  true  that 
it  would  be  hard  to  support  a  family  on  $4  a  week,  but  he 
argues  against  the  Minimum  Wage  in  this  case,  saying: 
"How  do  we  know  that  the  family  will  live  any  better  if 
they  do  get  more  than  $4  a  week?"  I  should  hate  to  have 
that  pessimistic  outlook.  I  suppose  some  families  might 
squander  the  additional,  but  it  is  certain  they  can't  squander 


REBUTTAL  45 

much  on  the  present  $4  a  week,  and  I  am  just  optimistic 
enough  to  believe  the  common  people  of  our  country  are 
high  minded  enough  to  use  more  than  $4  a  week,  and  use  it 
sensibly. 

The  gentlemen  also  argue  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will 
encourage  shiftlessness,  because  the  workers  will  not  care 
whether  they  work  or  are  supported  by  the  government. 
Why,  then,  are  our  poorhouses  not  crowded  to  the  walls  if 
the  pride  of  the  American  worker  has  fallen  so  low? 

The  Negative  suggest  that  we  have  a  strange  idea  of  the 
right  of  contract  when  we  say  that  it  presupposes  the  equal- 
ity of  the  bargaining  power  of  the  two  parties  to  the  contract. 
They  also  add  that  real  freedom  of  contract  gives  every  man 
the  right  to  sell  his  labor  as  he  sees  fit.  My  right  of  per- 
sonal liberty  allows  me  to  draw  up  and  extend  my  arm  with 
the  greatest  force — as  long  as  I  am  in  a  room  by  myself, 
but  when  I  am  in  a  crowd  my  personal  right  stops  just 
where  my  neighbor's  nose  begins.  When  we  are  gathered 
together  in  a  state  our  personal  right  of  freedom  of  contract 
stops  just  where  society's  rights  begin.  And  we  still  main- 
tain that  real  freedom  of  contract  presupposes  the  equality 
of  bargaining  power  of  the  two  parties. 

Now,  my  colleague  said  that  low  wages  are  the  cause, 
indirectly,  of  many  of  the  supposed  causes  of  poverty,  which 
the  Negative  recited  to  you,  for  instance,  drunkenness.  Now 
^the  Negative  tell  us  that  if  low  wages  cause  drunkenness  it 
would  be  foolish  for  us  to  give  these  people  more  money 
just  to  spend  for  liquor.  Honorable  judges,  if  this  argument 
of  theirs  hold  water,  why  don't  they  advocate  taking  what 
little  wage  they  get  now  away  from  them  so  they  won't 
have  anything  to  spend  for  drink? 

Now,  in  conclusion,  honorable  judges,  I  want  to  again 
caH  your  attention  to  the  various  arguments  for  the  Mini- 
mum Wage,  (i)  The  condition  of  the  unprotected  worker 
is  pitiful  and  demands  relief.  (2)  The  Minimum  Wage  is 
the  most  adequate  remedy  for  these  evils,  since  it  strikes  at 
the  very  root  of  the  evil.  (3)  The  Minimum  Wage  will 
increase  the  efficiency  and  productivity  of  the  state's  industry. 
(4)  The  Minimum  Wage  will  promote  the  general  welfare  of 
the  state,  and  (5)  The  Minimum  Wage  will  give  the  unpro- 


46  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

tected  worker  a  decent  living  and  a  fair  opportunity  in  the 
industrial  world. 

Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  we  are  not  arguing  for  the 
Minimum  Wage  for  the  benefit  of  the  employer  or  of  the 
state  or  of  the  higher  class  of  labor.  We  merely  mention 
these  classes  to  show  you  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  not 
hurt  them  and  may  do  them  some  good.  The  people  who 
we  believe  need  the  protection  of  the  Minimum  Wage  are 
the  unskilled,  unprotected  workers,  who,  because  of  their 
weakness,  are  being  exploited  by  unscrupulous  employers 
almost  at  will.  If  we  have  shown  you  that  the  Minimum 
Wage  will  give  this  class  of  workers  just  protection  and  the 
protection  that  is  due  them  as  weaker  members  of  our 
society,  I  believe  you  will  agree  with  us  that  the  Minimum 
Wage  is  justifiable. 

Our  opponents  have  emphasized,  over-emphasized  and 
magnified  many  little  pet  objections  to  the  principle,  but  it 
matters  not  how  good  a  law  may  be,  it  will  always  have  its 
enemies  who  can  pick  flaws  in  it  and  point  out  where  it  has 
failed  and  is  bound  to  fail.  We  have  passed  from  slavery  to 
citizenship,  from  absolute  monarchy  to  republic,  and  every 
step  of  the  way  has  been  fought  bitterly.  To-day  we  are 
concerned  more  and  more  with  man's  social  duty  and  what 
we  owe  to  society.  We  are  trying  to  produce  a  better  and 
higher  type  of  man  and  woman.  Of  course,  we  can  expect 
opponents  to  throw  water. 

We  do  not  claim  the  Minimum  Wage  is  a  panacea  for  all 
evils.  We  do  not  claim  it  could  be  universally  enacted  in  a 
year  or  even  in  ten  years.  The  wage  boards  would  probably 
have  to  be  introduced  gradually  in  one  trade  after  another. 
We  advocate  the  Minimum  Wage  boards  for  tho£e  groups  of 
unprotected  workers  which  need  protection  worst  and  believe 
that  these  boards  will  prove  a  fundamental,  thorogoing  and 
adequate  remedy  for  the  evil  of  underpaid  labor.  This 
method  promises  to  strike  at  the  real  root  of  the  evil,  and 
we  believe  that  while  not  a  complete  remedy,  it  is  a  sane 
attempt  to  do  something  in  an  intelligent  and  business-like 
manner  to  relieve  a  most  serious  situation.  It  seeks  first  to 
diagnose  the  difficulty  and  then  go  about  curing  it  in  the 
light  of  trustworthy  information. 


FIRST  NEGATIVE  REBUTTAL 

Ahin  W.   Wendt 

The  gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  have  based  their  entire 
argument  upon  the  idea  that  low  wages  are  the  cause  of 
poverty,  and  that  the  way  to  neutralize  these  evils  is  to  raise 
the  wage.  They  have  made  this  bold  assumption  without 
first  proving  its  truth.  Now  it  seems  quite  logical,  I  grant, 
to  argue  that  an  increase  of  wages  will  lessen  poverty,^  but 
let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the  real  causes  of  poverty  in 
general.  Adams  and  Sumner  in  their  book  on  labor  prob- 
lems give  us  an  account  of  an  investigation  in  the  four  cities 
of  New  York,  Boston,  Brooklyn  and  Philadelphia,  showing 
that  72  per  cent  of  the  poverty  is  due  to  misfortune  and  25 
per  cent  due  to  misconduct.  More  specifically,  drink  ac- 
counts for  15.3  per  cent  of  the  poverty;  shiftlessness  and  in- 
efficiency, 7.51  per  cent;  lack  of  employment,  6.51  per  cent; 
sickness  and  sudden  death,  22.27  Per  cent;  non-continuous 
employment,  24  per  cent,  and  old  age  4  per  cent.  This  leaves 
a  total  of  about  20  per  cent,  which  the  Minimum  Wage  could 
pos^sibly  remedy. 

The  Affirmative  contend  that  the  Minimum  Wage  is  no 
theoretical  movement,  but  yet  they  express  their  inability 
to  outline  any  definite  plan  for  it.  They  contend  that  under 
the  Minimum  Wage  permits  may  be  granted  to  beginners, 
incompetent,  aged  and  infirm  workers.  But  when  they  do 
this  they  have  neutralized  the  effects  of  their  law.  These 
beginners,  inefficient,  old  and  infirm  workers  are  the  ones 
that  need  aid.  It  was  for  them  that  the  Minimum  Wage  idea 
was  conceived.  When  you  allow  these  people  to  work  for 
what  they  see  fit  all  possibility  of  any  benefit  from  the  law 
is  done  away  with. 

They  argue  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  increase  the  pro- 
ductivity of  the  state's  industry,  but  granting  this  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  they  have  not  shown  in  any  way  how  this 
will  benefit  the  unprotected  laborer. 

Nor  does  the  argument  that  the  Minimum  Wage  benefits 
the  employer  have  anything  to  do  with  benefiting  these  poor 
down-trodden  laborers  which  the  Affirmative  are  continually 
talking  about. 


48  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

The  fact  that  Minimum  Wage  legislation  is  the  outgrowth 
of  recent  labor  legislation  is  immaterial  to  the  question.  It 
matters  not  from  what  this  theory  may  have  grown.  The 
Affirmative  must  base  their  arguments  on  the  merits  of  the 
Minimum  Wage  alone  and  not  on  sentimentalism. 

My  second  opponent  admits  that  laborers  will  be  thrown 
out  of  employment  and  agrees  that  those  thrown  out  will 
consist  mainly  of  the  incompetent  and  inefficient.  This  is 
exactly  the  same  class  of  laborers  which  they  are  seeking  to 
benefit.  Unemployment  is  already  a  great  national  problem 
and  is  responsible  for  about  one-fourth  of  all  poverty.  Any 
proposition  which  increases  this  number  certainly  cannot 
be  considered.  To  justify  this,  he  argues  that  they  will  be 
set  aside  as  a  special  class  to  be  studied  by  the  state.  Now 
these  people  are  poor  and  have  no  money  to  fall  back  on, 
and  I  ask  him  how  he  thinks  they  can  live  by  being  studied 
by  the  state. 

The  gentlemen  further  contend  that  these  so-called  minor 
details  will  soon  be  adjusted  after  the  plan  is  put  in  opera- 
tion. Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Australia  has  been  battling 
with  these  minor  details  for  eighteen  years  and  is  still 
attempting  to  adjust  them. 

Suppose  the  Minimum  Wage  law  will  promote  the  aggre- 
gate efficiency  of  industry  by  filling  every  position  with  the 
most  available  candidate,  as  the  Affirmative  contend.  The 
Minimum  Wage  is  not  proposed  to  better  our  industries,  its 
object  is  to  alleviate  poverty  and  wretchedness,  and  our  aim 
should  be  to  decrease  the  number  of  the  unemployed  rather 
than  increase  the  number  of  those  laborers  working  for  a 
high  wage. 

The  Affirmative  point  out  Australia  and  attempt  to  draw 
an  analogy  between  the  two  countries.  Now,  Australia  has 
an  area  greater  than  that  of  the  United  States  and  has  a 
population  of  about  one-thirtieth  as  much  as  the  United 
States.  They  have  few  cities  over  100,000,  and  the  population 
of  any  of  their  six  political  divisions  could  be  lost  in  Chicago, 
The  total  manufactured  output  of  Australia  in  1910  was  about 
one-fourteenth  as  much  as  the  State  of  Massachusetts. 
Then,  too,  Australia  has  compulsory  arbitration  laws  which 
are  the  foundations  for  what  little  success  has  been  accom- 


REBUTTAL  "  49 

plished  for  the  laborers  of  Australia.  Now,  have  the  Affirm- 
ative proved  in  any  way  that  these  vastly  different  conditions 
here  in  our  country  can  possibly  be  overcome  by  Australia's 
plan?  Have  they  proved  to  you  that  the  "analogy  is  strong," 
as  my  first  opponent  said  it  was?  I  believe  you  will  agree 
with  me  that  in  this  connection,  at  least,  their  statements 
have  not  been  backed  up  with  sound  reason. 

Just  as  my  honorable  opponent  has  said,  we  have  cited 
to  you  a  mass  of  objections,  which,  I  grant,  are  innumerable, 
and  in  addition  to  pointing  these  objections  out  to  you,  we 
have  proved  how  each  particular  objection  will  be  magnified 
under  the  much  more  complicated  industrial  conditions  of 
our  country. 

The  fact  that  the  Minimum  Wage  legislation  has  spread 
over  eight  states  is  no  argument  for  it.  The  fact  of  the 
matter  is  we  are  law  crazy.  The  cry  is  for  more  law,  instead 
of  for  a  better  enforcement  of  the  laws  which  are  already 
on  the  statute  books,  and  which  are  capable  of  handling  the 
situation  if  properly  enforced. 

In  our  own  country,  proper  inspection  of  the  tenement 
districts  and  proper  enforcement  of  factory  inspection  laws, 
sanitary  laws,  child  labor  laws,  would  accomplish  all  the 
results  which  the  Affirmative  are  appealing  for  to-night. 

In  closing,  honorable  judges,  let  me  say  that  I  am  entirely 
in  sympathy  with  the  helpless  laborers  and  I  realize  that  we 
as  a  nation  should  do  all  that  we  can  to  better  their  condition. 
However,  mere  flights  of  emotion  which  result  in  theoretical 
schemes,  will  do  nothing  to  better  this  condition.  If  my 
opponents  to-night  have  as  good  a  plan  as  they  would  have 
you  believe  why  haven't  they  dealt  more  in  clear-cut,  definite 
plans  instead  of  trying  to  arouse  your  sympathies?  If  the 
condition  of  our  poorer  laborers  needs  remedying  is  that  any 
reason  why  we  should  plunge  headlong  into  such  a  compli- 
cated and  uncertain  system  as  the  proposed  Minimum  Wage 
law?  As  I  have  previously  suggested,  all  that  one  can  claim 
for  it  can  reasonably  be  expected  to  follow  a  sane  enforce- 
ment of  our  present  laws,  coupled  with  education  and  moral 
reformation  of  the  poorer  classes. 

We  of  the  Negative  have  already  emphasized  the  fact  that 
the  Minimum  Wage  is  impractical  and  is  based  on  unsound 


50  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

economic  principles.  In  addition  to  this  we  have  pointed  out 
the  one  big  glaring  defect  of  the  whole  plan  as  set  forth  by 
our  opponents  to-night,  namely,  that  the  Minimum  Wage  law 
throws  out  of  employment  just  that  class  of  weak  and  de- 
fective laborers  which  it  seeks  to  benefit  and  increases  the 
already  too  large  army  of  the  unemployed.  For  these  rea- 
sons we  of  the  Negative  believe  that  the  Minimum  Wage 
should  not  be  adopted  by  state  governments. 


SECOND  NEGATIVE  REBUTTAL 
Lyle  M.  Cassat 

The  gentlemen  of  the  Affirmative  contend  that  the  Mini- 
mum Wage  will  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the  state 
because  it  will  be  the  best  means  of  securing  industrial  peace. 
For  this  argliment  there  seems  to  be  little  ground.  The 
state  is  not  troubled  with  industrial  warfare  where  the  people 
engaged  in  any  industry  are  not  strongly  organized.  An 
unorganized  mob  of  workers  couldn't  possibly  strike,  and  it 
is  for  these  laborers  that  our  opponents  are  arguing  to-night. 
The  gentleman  draws  a  pathetic  picture  of  these  poor,  unor- 
ganized people  who  have  to  take  what  an  employer  will  give 
them.  How  can  suc^  unorganized  people  possibly  create  any 
disturbance  in  the  industrial  world  which  warrants  the 
remedy  they  suggest  in  the  Minimum  Wage?  If  he  means 
that  in  a  strongly  organized  union  it  would  tend  toward 
peace,  not  only  are  our  opponents  standing  for  the  spread  of 
the  Minim*um  Wage  into  all  lines  of  industry,  but  they  forget 
that  organized  labor  does  not  want  the  legal  Minimum  Wage, 
Samuel  Gompers  emphatically  states  that  organized  labor  is 
opposed  to  the  legal  Minimum  Wage,  because  the  minimum 
would  soon  become  the  maximum.  But,  grant  for  the  mo- 
ment, that  it  will  work  out  theoretically,  it  has  not  secured 
industrial  peace  in  practice.  In  New  Zealand  there  was  a 
general  strike  of  the  slaughter  men  in  1907.  Since  then  there 
have  been  numerous  strikes  and  the  tendency  is  for  them  to 
become  more  numerous,  because  each  side  is  suspicious  of 
the  pressure  the  other  is  placing  on  the  wage  boards.  The 
hatred  between  the  two  classes  where  the  Minimum  Wage 
has  been  tried  is  not  known  even  Jn  our  own  country. 

As  to  the  Wisconsin  situation,  I  hold  here  a  letter  from 
the  Industrial  Commission  of  that  state,  dated  December  11, 
1913,  which  says  that,  "This  commission  has  done  practically 
nothing  on  this  law  up  to  the  present  time."  This  was  writ- 
ten some  nine  months  after  the  article  which  the  gentlemen 
referred  to  in  the  Review  of  Reviews  and  conveyed  the  im- 
pression that  the  Minimum  Wage  had  done  so  much  in  that 
state  to  relieve  the  pressure  between  laborers  and  employers. 
Nor  is   this   the  only  instance   of  our   opponents'   conveying 


52  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM   WAGE 

the  wrong  impression  by  their  statements.  The  first  gentle- 
man said  that  the  English  Parliament  was  so  pleased  with 
the  report  of  Mr.  Aves  that  they  immediately  wrote  the 
Wage  Boards  Act  of  1910.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Aves 
returned  to  England  in  1907.  It  doesn't  look  as  though 
Parliament  acted  with  undue  haste  in  order  to  get  the  law 
written  by  1910. 

They  also  contend  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  protect 
women  workers.  As  a  matter  of  fact  women  workers  should 
not  be  in  industry  at  all  when  they  have  families  to  look 
after.  How  can  a  higher  wage  keep  the  mother  at  home  or 
keep  the  children  in  school?  We  want  women  workers  kept 
entirely  out  of  industry  and  given  opportunity  to  fill  their 
sphere  of  influence  in  the  home.  But  kow  in  the  name  of 
common  sense  can  this  be  done  by  offering  them  higher 
wages  and  only  luring  them  on  instead  of  devising  a  scheme 
whereby  they  may  be  looking  after  those  who  need  a  moth- 
er's care.  ^ 

Further,  they  claim  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  prevent 
the  exploitation  of  the  helpless  worker  and  give  him  a  fair 
opportunity  in  the  industrial  world.  They  have  told  us  that 
a  man  cannot  keep  his  family  on  $4  per  week.  Very  true, 
but  how  do  we  know  that  his  family  would  live  one  bit  better 
if  he  received  higher  wages.  We  have  shown  you,  honorable 
judges,  that  according  to  the  report  of  the  .Massachusetts 
Industrial  Commission,  from  50  to  80  per  cent,  of  all  workers 
investigated  were  either  foreign  born  or  native  born  of  for- 
eign parentage.  These  people  do  not  want  better  conditions 
than  they  now  have.  They  are  finding  their  work  remunera- 
tive enough  that  they  send  back  large  amounts  comparatively 
each  year  to  the  old  countries. 

The  argument  that  the  Minimum  Wage  will  stimulate 
endeavor  to  increase  individual  efficiency  seems  far  fetched. 
Our  honorable  opponents  forget  that  they  are  discussing  the 
lower  classes  of  laborers  which  they  pictured  early  in  the 
debate.  Their  argument  might  apply  if  each  laborer  were  an 
educated  man.  You  and  I,  of  course,  wouldn't  want  to  lose 
our  jobs,  but  what  of  these  people?  They  don't  care  whether 
they  live  by  their  labor  or  whether  the  state  furnishes  it  for 
them.     If  they  can  secure  a  living  from  the  state  how  could 


REBUTTAL  53 

it  possibly  stimulate  their  ambitions  to  increase  efficiency? 
Dr.  Clark  emphasizes  in  his  report  that  the  opposite  is  the 
case  in  Australia,  where,  he  says,  there  is  a  decided  trend  in 
the  direction  of  decreased  efficiency. 

Nor  does  the  Minimum  Wage  make  the  right  of  contract 
an  actuality.  It  only  makes  the  employer  state  whether  he 
wants  the  laborer  or  not,  in  a  word,  without  paying  what  the 
laborer  can  earn  and  what  he  would  be  glad  to  receive. 
Right  of  contract  means  that  if  a  man  wants  to  receive  so 
much  for  his  labor,  he  has  the  right  to  do  so.  Certainly  our 
honorable  opponents  have  a  strange  idea  of  the  right  of 
contract.  The  Minimum  Wa^e  takes  away  his  right  to 
work  for  what  he  wants  to  and  throws  him  a  pauper  on  the 
state   instead. 

The  gentlemen  have  attempted  to  explain  away  the  sta- 
tistics given  by  Adams  and  Sumner  as  to  the  causes  of 
poverty,  in  a  humorous  way.  It  is  strange  indeed  to  say  that 
low  wages  prompt  men  to  lead  lives  of  vice  and  drunkenness. 
Would  we  be  justified  in  increasing  this  kind  of  low  living 
by  giving  them  higher  wages?  Certainly  not.  That  is  ex- 
actly" our  point.  If  only  50  per  cent  of  poverty  were  due  to 
low  wages,  by  raising  the  wages  of  these  people  we  would 
be  aggravating  the  drunkenness,  vice,  etc.,  of  the  other  50 
per  cent. 

The  Affirmative  have  attempted  to  prove  first  that  the 
condition  of  the  laborer  is  pitiful  and  demands  relief.  All 
of  this  we  can  admit,  but  it  argues  nothing  for  the  Minimum 
Wage.  They  say  second  that  the  Minimum  Wage  strikes  at 
the  very  root  of  the  evil.  But  we  have  shown  you,  ladies 
and  gentlemen,  that  this  cannot  possibly  be  true,  since  low 
wages  are  not  the  cause  of  even  half  our  poverty.  Nor  can 
their  third  argument  stand,  that  the  Minimum  Wage  would 
increase  the  efficiency  and  productivity  of  the  state's  indus- 
try, for  we  have  shown  you  that  capital  would  be  intimidated, 
laborers  thrown  out  of  work,  and  general  confusion  result. 
They  have  argued  as  their  fourth  point  that  under  the  Mini- 
mum Wage  the  unprotected  worker  is  given  a  decent  living 
and  a  fair  opportunity  in  the  industrial  world.  According  to 
their  own  argument,  however,  the  Minimum  Wage  cannot 
create  positions,  and  we  must  realize  that  the  right  of  con- 


54  COMPULSORY    MINIMUM    WAGE 

tract  is  made  no  more  of  a  reality  because  under  the  Mini- 
mum Wage  the  employer  holds  all  the  power  by  his  decision 
of  how  many  and  what  laborers  shall  work  for  him. 

In  conclusion,  honorable  judges,  I  want  to  briefly  sum 
up  the  arguments  of  the  Negative.  We  have  shown  you  that 
the  Minimum  Wage  would  prove  positively  detrimental  to 
our  states,  first,  because  it  is  impracticable.  We  have  shown 
you  that  the  best  Minimum  Wage  system  known  to-day 
would  not  work  in  the  United  States,  because  it  is  inelastic, 
could  not  be  adequately  investigated  and  is  easily  evaded. 
We  have  shown  you  that  the  policy  of  fixing  a  Minimum 
Wage  by  state  governments  is  not  desirable,  second,  because 
it  is  based  upon  unsound  economic  theory.  We  have  shown 
you  on  this  point,  first,  that  poverty  is  not  due  in  the  majority 
of  cases  to  low  wages,  an  argument  which  our  opponents 
have  utterly  failed  to  meet.  Second,  because  efficie-ncy  should 
be  always  the  basis  for  wages.  Third,  because  it  will  tend  to 
lessen  the  laborer's  individual  effort  to  increase  efficiency, 
and,  fourth,  because  it  would  interfere  with  the  personal  lib- 
erty of  the  laborer.  It  is  further  not  desirable,  because,  third, 
the  Minimum  Wage  would  only  make  bad  industrial  condi- 
tions worse  by,  first,  increasing  the  numbers  of  the  unem- 
ployed; second,  by  intimidating  capital,  and,  third,  by  stimu- 
lating undesirable  immigration.  For  these  reasons,  honor- 
able judges,  we  of  the  Negative  contend  that  the  policy  of 
fixing  a  Minimum  Wage  by  state  government  is  not  desirable. 


«7^  OF  25  CENTS 

WlUU  BE  ^^!,^®  THE  DATE  ^^E-  JHE  P  ^^^ 

DAY    AND    TO     $1°  ___=== 

OVERDUE. 


21/S'3a 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


